Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release - Page 35

post #341 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdr09 View Post

there are those who cringing eager to bury your input.redface.gif

Not sure what you mean, I wasn't trying to cause a stir, only trying to find a solution smile.gif I'm far from an elitest, and enjoy the game, bugs or no bugs.
post #342 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serandur View Post

Yes, it is. As the resolution increases, the 390X's deficit shrinks as more load is placed on the GPU while the same amount remains on the CPU. The "bottleneck" therefore shifts over to the GPU allowing the 390X machine to perform more closely to the 980.
No. If it were the opposite and the 980 were having a CPU overhead issue and not the 390X, then the 980 would be exhibiting lower relative performance to the 390X at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 than at 4K, not the way around. I don't know what you mean.
Of course? Maxwell's faster at Gameworks/tesselation than GCN and takes less of a hit than GCN with it on... across all three resolutions.
No it shouldn't, for all the reasons I stated above. The data doesn't lie. It's the 390X showing the lower resolution performance deficit, the relative positioning change with Gameworks on occurs at all three resolutions (because the 980 takes less of a hit from tessellation than the 390X), and this data falls in line with other games/benchmarks' data showing similar behavior, Eurogamer's interpretation of the situation (970 vs 390), and PClab's interpretation of the situation (translated):


"As already could see the result in the test Boston quite heavily depends on processor performance, but worry should only holders of relatively old and slow systems. In by far the worse are the AMD Radeon card users. Significantly higher CPU load, probably generated by the graphics card driver, resulting in a much lower efficiency. The performance of graphics cards in tandem with the Core i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz are as follows:

-GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 57.9 frames / sec.
-GeForce GTX 970: 49.8 frames / sec.
-Radeon R9 Fury X: 34.9 frames / sec.
-Radeon R9 390 34.5 frames / sec."


http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html

It's the core 0 issue. Bethesda drops everything on core 0. Pretty much everything on core 0. AMD has a lot of driver overhead and when using DX11 or older core 0 is utilized for the renderer. Because NVidia optimized their DX11 drivers for a specific multi-threaded access, AMD could've done and it was actually done for the HD 6k series VLIW4/5 and earlier, it just doesn't work on a GCN arch unless we're still waiting for it's release of support. However it doesn't work because AMD designed GCN to be purely multithreaded as to why it can do simultaneous compute and render work loads.

Set the affinity on the processor get it off of core 0 and see if that improves it.
Edited by SpeedyVT - 11/10/15 at 9:36am
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
Power Tower
(22 items)
 
SteamBox
(9 items)
 
Doge Miner
(7 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700X AX370-Gaming 5 AMD Radeon R9 200 Series G.Skill DDR4-2400 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 G.Skill DDR4-2400 Samsung 840 Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
CX300 Crucial 480GB Toshiba 4TB Toshbia 4TB Western Digital Black 1TB 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
h110i Windows 10 42" LG TV 20" Digitizer ASUS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Vengeance Mechanical Keyboard  850watt Vampire Gold Rated NZXT S340 Elite Corsair RGB FPS Mouse 
Mouse PadAudio
Borderlands Mousepad Realtek HD 
  hide details  
Reply
post #343 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serandur View Post

Yes, it is. As the resolution increases, the 390X's deficit shrinks as more load is placed on the GPU while the same amount remains on the CPU. The "bottleneck" therefore shifts over to the GPU allowing the 390X machine to perform more closely to the 980.
No. If it were the opposite and the 980 were having a CPU overhead issue and not the 390X, then the 980 would be exhibiting lower relative performance to the 390X at 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 than at 4K, not the way around. I don't know what you mean.
Of course? Maxwell's faster at Gameworks/tesselation than GCN and takes less of a hit than GCN with it on... across all three resolutions.
No it shouldn't, for all the reasons I stated above. The data doesn't lie. It's the 390X showing the lower resolution performance deficit, the relative positioning change with Gameworks on occurs at all three resolutions (because the 980 takes less of a hit from tessellation than the 390X), and this data falls in line with other games/benchmarks' data showing similar behavior, Eurogamer's interpretation of the situation (970 vs 390), and PClab's interpretation of the situation (translated):


"As already could see the result in the test Boston quite heavily depends on processor performance, but worry should only holders of relatively old and slow systems. In by far the worse are the AMD Radeon card users. Significantly higher CPU load, probably generated by the graphics card driver, resulting in a much lower efficiency. The performance of graphics cards in tandem with the Core i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz are as follows:

-GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 57.9 frames / sec.
-GeForce GTX 970: 49.8 frames / sec.
-Radeon R9 Fury X: 34.9 frames / sec.
-Radeon R9 390 34.5 frames / sec."


http://pclab.pl/art66856-16.html

It's the opposite if you look at the 1080p results. You wasted keystrokes in reiterating your point by taking my reply line by line.

If you think that gameworks/tessellation takes less of a hit on the maxwell cards, well that's the crux of the issue and you conceded the point.
Secondly, if 390 is CPU bottlenecked and still takes more of a hit with gameworks, then it concedes the issue ever more.
Thirdly, if it's taking that hit across all resolutions then it concedes the issue even further.

And we haven't even started looking at the Fury cards performance.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e2140@3.2Ghz abit IP35-E HIS IceQ4 4850 4GB 667@800 5-5-5-15 
OSPower
win xp 32 bit Corsair 450VX@stock 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
e2140@3.2Ghz abit IP35-E HIS IceQ4 4850 4GB 667@800 5-5-5-15 
OSPower
win xp 32 bit Corsair 450VX@stock 
  hide details  
Reply
post #344 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7akata View Post

Not sure what you mean, I wasn't trying to cause a stir, only trying to find a solution smile.gif I'm far from an elitest, and enjoy the game, bugs or no bugs.

God Rays to low i read will help.

Just don't mention the dips. it's a 980 Ti for pete's sake.biggrin.gif
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Second Intel Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2700 4.5/ 1.28 77 290 (2) 16 / 1866 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1000 360/240 10 64 28 2160 
PowerCase
850 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #345 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01 View Post

lol, this

Ughh, I was really hoping it would utilize at least 4 of my 6 cores thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
SOOR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 6300 Asrock 990FX Extreme3 MSI GTX 970 GAMING Ripjaws X 2x8GB 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial MX100 Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 SAMSUNG DVD Burner 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R... Hyper 212 EVO 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 x64 LG 27MP33HQ 1900x1080 IPS 27" HP 2009m 1600x900 Generic Dell Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX600 Corsair Carbide 500r Logitech B100 
  hide details  
Reply
SOOR
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX 6300 Asrock 990FX Extreme3 MSI GTX 970 GAMING Ripjaws X 2x8GB 2133 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Crucial MX100 Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM003 SAMSUNG DVD Burner 24X DVD+R 8X DVD+RW 8X DVD+R... Hyper 212 EVO 
OSMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Windows 10 x64 LG 27MP33HQ 1900x1080 IPS 27" HP 2009m 1600x900 Generic Dell Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair CX600 Corsair Carbide 500r Logitech B100 
  hide details  
Reply
post #346 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derp View Post

CPU results.






Ouch...
wat
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
Lil' Roy Taylor
(11 items)
 
  
Reply
post #347 of 701
Does Fallout 4 support 144Hz refresh rate?

As far as I can tell, the game won't run higher than 100Hz.
X79-GCN
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K 4.5GHz HT GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 AMD R9-290X GEil Evo Potenza DDR3 2400MHz CL10 (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung 840 Pro 120GB EK Supremacy (CPU) NF F12's P/P (360 Rad)  NF A14's (420 Rad)  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Chrome Compression Fittings EK RES X3 150 Primochill PremoFlex Advanced LRT Clear 1/2 ID EK-FC (R9 290X) 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK D5 Vario Top-X  Phobya G-Changer V2 360mm Phobya G-Changer V2 420mm Win 10 x64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XR3501 35" Curved Corsair Vengeance K90 Seasonic X-1250 Gold (v2) Corsair 900D 
MouseAudio
Logitech G400s Senn HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
X79-GCN
(22 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930K 4.5GHz HT GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 AMD R9-290X GEil Evo Potenza DDR3 2400MHz CL10 (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingCooling
Samsung 840 Pro 120GB EK Supremacy (CPU) NF F12's P/P (360 Rad)  NF A14's (420 Rad)  
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC Chrome Compression Fittings EK RES X3 150 Primochill PremoFlex Advanced LRT Clear 1/2 ID EK-FC (R9 290X) 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK D5 Vario Top-X  Phobya G-Changer V2 360mm Phobya G-Changer V2 420mm Win 10 x64 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
BenQ XR3501 35" Curved Corsair Vengeance K90 Seasonic X-1250 Gold (v2) Corsair 900D 
MouseAudio
Logitech G400s Senn HD 598 
  hide details  
Reply
post #348 of 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamervivek View Post

It's the opposite if you look at the 1080p results. You wasted keystrokes in reiterating your point by taking my reply line by line.
What? No, it's not the opposite. The 980 system is clearly outperforming the 390X rather massively at 1080p with Gameworks on and off and that relative performance change between Gameworks on and off that you're using as the sole point of your argument occurs at all resolutions (showing that CPU limitations don't play a role in that discrepancy).

This completely invalidates any notion of the 980 somehow being the one with higher CPU overhead due to the Gameworks off results having a lesser advantage over the 390X. What you're doing is beyond cherrypicking, it's flat-out ignoring direct evidence to the contrary and arguing some vague point I never made. I commented on a CPU limitation and you're just making incomprehensible points that have nothing to do with it.

Quote:
If you think that gameworks/tessellation takes less of a hit on the maxwell cards, well that's the crux of the issue and you conceded the point.


How is tesselation taking less of a hit on Maxwell cards the crux of the issue of AMD's CPU overhead... with Gameworks off? And what point did I concede, exactly? I simply demonstrated that your interpretation of the results as Nvidia somehow being the one with a CPU overhead issue is incorrect.

Quote:
Secondly, if 390 is CPU bottlenecked and still takes more of a hit with gameworks, then it concedes the issue ever more.


As I said, I don't know what it is I'm conceding exactly, but your interpretation of the results once again eludes me. Benchmarks results, especially of framerate, are calculated as either averages or presented as minimums. The average FPS figure isn't a chart of peaks and lows, but a single number derived from all recorded data points including both GPU and CPU-limited points. Heavy CPU limitations affect the average, but don't comprise it in its entirety. Relative and absolute loads on both the GPU and CPU are constantly changing in video games.

The minimum isn't always in line with the actual worst frame-times experienced as it itself is an average of the slowest period of frame-pushing during the selected benchmark sequence. It doesn't denote irregular peaks and lows nor pure CPU restrictions on its own either. Gameworks features are specifically handled by the GPU. Additional demand placed on the GPU will affect performance. Even on a game where one system is experiencing frequent and heavy CPU restrictions, it is rarely 100% the case that every frame is CPU-limited therefore poorer GPU performance will still bring down the average framerate or even the minimum.

Quote:
Thirdly, if it's taking that hit across all resolutions then it concedes the issue even further.


No, that hit across all resolutions invalidates your point that rested purely on the occurrence at 1920x1080 as being indicative of the 980 hitting a CPU limitation instead of the 390X even though you blatantly disregarded the same occurrence at all (including more GPU-intensive) resolutions, disregarded the obvious reason (being that Maxwell performs the calculations better), and disregarded the 390X itself being the one heavily underperforming at the lower resolutions.
Quote:
And we haven't even started looking at the Fury cards performance.
PClab covered it; CPU limitation, according to their results. Regardless, I'm not sure what you'd expect to see with the Fury X. It's had a lion's share of low resolution scaling indicating that it, being even more powerful than Hawaii, is even more likely to be impacted by AMD's factually-occurring CPU overhead issues.
Edited by Serandur - 11/10/15 at 10:06am
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
Ice-nine
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6700K Asus Z170-DELUXE Gigabyte G1 GTX 980 Ti Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 Evo 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200 RPM 2 TB Asus DVD Drive DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Phanteks PH-TC14PE 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 8.1 Pro AOC Q2770PQU Corsair K95 RGB - Cherry MX Blue EVGA Supernova G2 750W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT Phantom 410 Gunmetal Edition Logitech G502 Proteus Core Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Small Cyber Acoustics Satellite CA-3602 
Audio
Oppo PM-3 Closed Back Planar Magnetic Headphones 
  hide details  
Reply
post #349 of 701
Looking at how much AMD catches up at higher resolution, looks more like a driver overhead issue which makes this mostly AMD fault.
post #350 of 701
Pclab? Wont even bother clicking. The mere fact that they show a stock 4770k beating an overclocked 3570k@4.5GHz by 20% ,in a game that uses 2 cores, indicates that they produced numbers from their behinds once again.At this point I am pretty convinced they just bench 1 low end and 1 high CPU and fill in the rest themselves. If there is a video of what they are benching I will try to repro myself, will probably get 30% higher fps with a 290X than what they got with a 8320 and a 980Ti.
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
Reply
Mastodon Ryzen
(12 items)
 
HP Z220
(8 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
R7 1800X Asus Crosshair VI Hero Sapphire RX Vega 64 reference Gskill TridentZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Pny SSD 240GB Crucial MX100 CM Nepton 280L Win 10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
Acer Predator XG270HU Freesync XFX 750W Pro HAF XM Logitech G502 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsCooling
i7 3770 HP Quadro K2000 HP 
OSPowerCaseMouse
Win 7  HP 400W HP CMT RAT 7 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [PCGHW]Fallout 4 in art test with benchmarks for release