Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Would an FX 8350 REALLY cost me 1,000 Points on Valley?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would an FX 8350 REALLY cost me 1,000 Points on Valley? - Page 2

post #11 of 16
Inferior IPC on AMD has nothing to do with software developer being biased. The difference 3DMark is showing is less than the actual real world difference between the CPUs, unless your workloads are 100% integer.
post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Inferior IPC on AMD has nothing to do with software developer being biased. The difference 3DMark is showing is less than the actual real world difference between the CPUs, unless your workloads are 100% integer.

Explain why if there is a 46 % difference in relative performance of the cpu by it's own measure, why does it show such a huge difference in the combined test? smile.gif
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Reply
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Reply
post #13 of 16
Because CT is essentially the same PT run simultaneously with a graphics test. The CPU becomes a bottle neck to the graphics card, which amplifies (higher difference than in pure PT) the effect since the graphics performance is taken into account.

Fire Strike:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark 
3DMark Fire Strike Physics test benchmarks the hardware’s ability to run gameplay physics simulations on the CPU. The GPU load is kept as low as possible to ensure that only the CPU is stressed. The Bullet Open Source Physics Library is used as the physics library for the test. The test has 32 simulated worlds. One thread per available CPU core is used to run simulations. All physics are computed on CPU with soft body vertex data updated to GPU each frame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark 
3DMark Fire Strike Combined test stresses both the GPU and CPU simultaneously. The GPU load combines elements from Graphics test 1 and 2 using tessellation, volumetric illumination, fluid simulation, particle simulation, FFT based bloom and depth of field. The CPU load comes from the rigid body physics of the breaking statues in the background. There are 32 simulation worlds running in separate threads each containing one statue decomposing into 113 parts. Additionally there are 16 invisible rigid bodies in each world except the one closest to camera to push the decomposed elements apart. The simulations run on one thread per available CPU core. The 3DMark Fire Strike Combined test uses the Bullet Open Source Physics Library.

Sky Diver:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark 
3DMark Sky Diver Physics test benchmarks the hardware’s ability to run gameplay physics simulations on the CPU. The GPU load is kept as low as possible to ensure that only the CPU is stressed. The test uses the Bullet Open Source Physics Library. Sky Diver Physics test introduces a new approach to CPU testing in 3DMark designed to extend the performance range for which the test is relevant. With this new approach, the test has four levels of work. The first level is the lightest and the last is the heaviest. The test starts with the first level and continues to the fourth level unless the frame rate drops below a minimum threshold. The score is calculated from the last two completed levels.There are 96 simulation worlds with identical structure in total. In the first level, 8 worlds are triggered. On the second level, 16 more. On the third level, a further 24, and on the fourth and final level, another 48 so that all 96 worlds are being simulated at once. Each world contains a statue that collapses when struck by a hammer swinging from a chain. Each statue contains 49 fragments. Each fragment is a mesh collision shape and, together, the 49 fragments have 6590 triangles. The hammer piece hangs on a chain with 39 links simulated using the Featherstone articulated body algorithm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuremark 
This test contains both graphics workloads and physics simulations to stress the CPU and GPU. The test uses the compute shader based deferred tiled lighting method from Graphics test 2. The CPU workload is similar to the third level of the Physics test where 48 worlds are being simulated at once. The workloads are designed to be of equal weight so that on balanced systems both the GPU and CPU are well utilized. The 3DMark Sky Diver Combined test uses the Bullet Open Source Physics Library.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Inferior IPC on AMD has nothing to do with software developer being biased. The difference 3DMark is showing is less than the actual real world difference between the CPUs, unless your workloads are 100% integer.

In latest games this isn't true. In the latest games an FX8350 is above a 2600K and overclocked equal to a 4770/4790K. Thanks to consoles FX chips are finally shining.

The girlfriend.
(15 items)
 
The Mistress
(13 items)
 
Media Server
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A8-6410 Lenovo Lancer 4B2 K16.3 R5 128 Shaders/M230 Hynix 8GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 120 GB SSD Seagate Momentus 1TB 5400rmp Linux Mint 18.3 CMN1487 TN LED 14" 1366*768 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Lenovo AccuType 2900mAh/41Wh Elan Trackpad/Logitech M90 Super Flower 
Audio
AMD Avalon(Connexant) 
  hide details  
Reply
The girlfriend.
(15 items)
 
The Mistress
(13 items)
 
Media Server
(11 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A8-6410 Lenovo Lancer 4B2 K16.3 R5 128 Shaders/M230 Hynix 8GB DDR3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 840 120 GB SSD Seagate Momentus 1TB 5400rmp Linux Mint 18.3 CMN1487 TN LED 14" 1366*768 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Lenovo AccuType 2900mAh/41Wh Elan Trackpad/Logitech M90 Super Flower 
Audio
AMD Avalon(Connexant) 
  hide details  
Reply
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liranan View Post

In latest games this isn't true. In the latest games an FX8350 is above a 2600K and overclocked equal to a 4770/4790K. Thanks to consoles FX chips are finally shining.

The discussion was not about games, but about 3DMark and the reasons behind it (Bullet physics library).

In this (limited) ranking 2600K is 7%, 3770K 21% and 4790K 45% ahead of FX-8350. FX-8350 can be pushed higher, but so can be these Intel parts too.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

15h parts have never done well in any other workload but in pure integer. And they never will. A turd won't turn into a gem no matter how much of polishing (theoretical optimization) is done.
Edited by The Stilt - 6/26/16 at 10:29am
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stilt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liranan View Post

In latest games this isn't true. In the latest games an FX8350 is above a 2600K and overclocked equal to a 4770/4790K. Thanks to consoles FX chips are finally shining.

The discussion was not about games, but about 3DMark and the reasons behind it (Bullet physics library).

In this (limited) ranking 2600K is 7%, 3770K 21% and 4790K 45% ahead of FX-8350. FX-8350 can be pushed higher, but so can be these Intel parts too.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/CPU-Hardware-154106/Tests/Rangliste-Bestenliste-1143392/

15h parts have never done well in any other workload but in pure integer. And they never will. A turd won't turn into a gem no matter how much of polishing (theoretical optimization) is done.
Futuremark]s 3d benches have been used by many as a way to compare relative gaming performance across platforms , that being given I think it's why lirarian brought it here. I'd agree with him in that there isn't much difference between those i7's and the FX for the vast majority of games when played at resolutions and settings most common to modern gamers.

Firestrike misrepresents the value of H/T as it relates to gaming in a way that reflects positively upon the Intel chips in it's physics test . Then ignores any advantage more cores have relative to gaming performance - misrepresenting the capabilities of the FX in the combined test. The combined score poorly represents any real world situation regarding 3d performance as it relates to gaming .

If an FX is a turd then I'd submit that i7 quads are overpriced , over-hyped turds.

I vastly prefer my FX rigs to my 2600k, 3770k, or 4790k .
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Reply
Ryzen Shine!
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1800X @ 4125mhz 1.432 Volts MSI X370 Titanium   Fury  G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 pro Hp 1260 I liquid unobtanium Koolance 480mm radiator, 39... Win 7 HP/Winspy 10 64bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
24" hp @ 1900x1200 Logitech G19 PC power and cooling 910 watt silencer Thermaltake P5 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitech MX 518 fUnc industries 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › Would an FX 8350 REALLY cost me 1,000 Points on Valley?