[Brutuz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric

I'm not sure why anybody would think PD were bad CPU's? Just not as good as Intel for the most part...

Games are actually a minor subset of what people who use performance CPUs do, for the most part an FX-8350 is either slightly behind or in front of the i5, it's only in synthetic benchmarks, a handful of single-threaded tasks and games that you see PD being decidedly behind.

 

[raghu78]

What Crysis 3 and BF3 Multiplayer is proving is that any hardware is useless without software exploiting it. AMD Vishera is a decent chip for gaming. its single threaded performance is a drawback. but if developers bend their back vishera is no slouch. It helps that AMD has designed the next gen consoles with 8 thread CPUs.

I am looking forward to Haswell vs Steamroller. Intel is still going for higher single threaded performance with HT while AMD is looking to improve single threaded performance but has better multi thread scaling than HT. Two different approaches to multithread performance. Let see how they perform on the upcoming next gen game engines designed for PS4 / Xbox Next

 

[svenge]

So let me get this straight: All it takes for AMD's flagship Piledriver CPUs to show parity to Intel's 2-year-old Sandy Bridge i5 chips is to add moar cores to help compensate for terrible IPC, rely on users to heavily overclock their chips and augment them with aftermarket watercoolers since AMD can't deliver modern chip designs that both perform well and not scorch motherboards at default stock settings, and heavily compensate developers to use every trick in the book to optimize performance for FX chips while completely ignoring Intel's hyperthreading abilities that any competent developer would be remiss not to utilize? And then to publicize that "achievement", pay off some Soviet Russian site with a couple crates of vodka in order to publish benchmarks that completely ignore Intel's current-gen chips that have been out the better part of the year?

Shoot, if it was that easy why didn't AMD do it sooner?

 

[sherlock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by svenge

So let me get this straight: All it takes for AMD's flagship Piledriver CPUs to show parity to Intel's 2-year-old Sandy Bridge i5 chips is to add moar cores to help compensate for terrible IPC, rely on users to heavily overclock their chips and augment them with aftermarket watercoolers since AMD can't deliver modern chip designs that both perform well and not scorch motherboards at default stock settings, and heavily compensate developers to use every trick in the book to optimize performance for FX chips while completely ignoring Intel's hyperthreading abilities that any competent developer would be remiss not to utilize?

Shoot, if it was that easy why didn't AMD do it sooner?

They were working on that World Record LN2 Bulldozer chip

 

[AznDud333]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bencher

Its not always so.
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=10

no offense but those numbers seems off
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1598/pg6/amd-fx-8350-processor-review-battlefield-3.html

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/5/

thats just top 3 results from google, the link you posted seems to suggest that intel chips are more than 10% behind amd chips in battlefield 3, which seems really inconsistent and far fetched comparing to other well known websites such as Toms

 

[SoloCamo]

Came back a few hours later to this thread expecting different results, left disappointed once again.

PD is good, Sandy is good, Ivy is good. /thread.

Can we talk about you know...crysis 3 here?

 

[KyadCK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

Came back a few hours later to this thread expecting different results, left disappointed once again.

PD is good, Sandy is good, Ivy is good. /thread.

Can we talk about you know...crysis 3 here?

Of course not, that would be silly. Everyone knows games are just interactive benchmarks.

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KyadCK

Of course not, that would be silly. Everyone knows games are just interactive benchmarks.

Not gonna lie, it's the only reason I own crysis 2 and 3 so far

 

[Azuredragon1]

Hate or love EA, they know how to put out games that run really well on all systems.

 

[Raven.7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azuredragon1

Hate or love EA, they know how to put out games that run really well on all systems.

EA? You mean Crytek?

 

[ZealotKi11er]

Intel lost this one hard. How is Intel going to keep up with AMD once games start to use 8-Cores? I mean Crysis 3 uses ~ 6-Core. If they tested 3770K the 8350 would probably still edge it. If games fully use 8-Core i can see 8350 edge out even Intel 6-Core CPUs which is sad. 4770K is not going to cut it. We have had 4- Core CPUs long enough now. Really 3770K should have been 6-Core by now @ $300. AMD has to stop Intel more to wake them up.

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er

Intel lost this one hard. How is Intel going to keep up with AMD once games start to use 8-Cores? I mean Crysis 3 uses ~ 6-Core. If they tested 3770K the 8350 would probably still edge it. If games fully use 8-Core i can see 8350 edge out even Intel 6-Core CPUs which is sad. 4770K is not going to cut it. We have had 4- Core CPUs long enough now. Really 3770K should have been 6-Core by now @ $300. AMD has to stop Intel more to wake them up.

Better HT coding in this game would have easily made up the difference. The better ipc helps quite a bit. Now if amd's ipc matched that of intel's then intel would be sweating a bit. Regardless, I do agree, it's about time intel brough the 6 and 8 cores down to the mainstream

 

[Forceman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er

Intel lost this one hard. How is Intel going to keep up with AMD once games start to use 8-Cores? I mean Crysis 3 uses ~ 6-Core. If they tested 3770K the 8350 would probably still edge it. If games fully use 8-Core i can see 8350 edge out even Intel 6-Core CPUs which is sad. 4770K is not going to cut it. We have had 4- Core CPUs long enough now. Really 3770K should have been 6-Core by now @ $300. AMD has to stop Intel more to wake them up.

Let's not go overboard. The previous generation chips are 10% behind on one game. Let's see how this plays out going forward before declaring Intel to be dead.

Best case, they lower prices to compete - then we all win.

 

[sherlock]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er

Intel lost this one hard. How is Intel going to keep up with AMD once games start to use 8-Cores? I mean Crysis 3 uses ~ 6-Core. If they tested 3770K the 8350 would probably still edge it. If games fully use 8-Core i can see 8350 edge out even Intel 6-Core CPUs which is sad. 4770K is not going to cut it. We have had 4- Core CPUs long enough now. Really 3770K should have been 6-Core by now @ $300. AMD has to stop Intel more to wake them up.

If Intel think this show a real threat (that hyperthreading quads no longer keep up with AMD octas in multithreaded games, and new game will demand more physical cores), Broadwell dieshrink do give them a real opportunity to go to 6 cores on mainstream. For now what they could do is either boost 4770K stock Frequency/allow full turbo multiplier on Quadcore boost or introduce a higher clocked 4790K(as leaked road map shows a >=4770K in Q3).

Another thing I wouldn't rule out is for Ivy-E to introduce a Hexcore 3820 replacement as well as Octa core for the 3930K successor, certainly doable given it have already been done with Gulftown (added 2 core across the board with dieshrink).

Intel's edge in die size( Ivy die is 1/2 the size of Vieshera) also give them more price flexilbility if the need to lower price emerges(like this). Competition is a good thing.

 

[Partol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

Better HT coding in this game would have easily made up the difference:

How does one write game code to use (or not use) hyperthreading? I've never heard of such a thing. Example please.
There are plenty of PC games which use hyperthreading on my core i3, and I'm sure most or all of them have no special code to use hyperthreading.

 

[tambok2012]

Intel should be sad for upcomming games utilizing more cores..
they should lower the price of their processors

Good job AMD!

http://img02.imgland.net/zHOilTgh2G.png

funny before... but now??

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Partol

How does one write game code to use (or not use) hyperthreading? I've never heard of such a thing. Example please.
There are plenty of PC games which use hyperthreading on my core i3, and I'm sure most or all of them have no special code to use hyperthreading.

So you are telling me that showing little to no HT use on the quad cores is a sign of proper HT utilization when the 8-core amd's are showing high usage on all 8 cores? Even bf3 MP (which loves threading) showed HT being a useful asset. For an example... go to page one of this thread.

Trust me, I'd love to say my 8350 tops a i7 3770k, but in all reality with proper utlization it will match it, slightly edge it out, or be very slightly behind it.

 

[sgdude]

Hmmm if a GTX 560 Ti gets 18 FPS @ 1080P, I wonder if my OCed card can get playable frames (~30 fps) at 1680x 1050 (native res) with 0xAA on my 3.8ghz i5. Any thoughts?

 

[Darkpriest667]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

So you are telling me that showing little to no HT use on the quad cores is a sign of proper HT utilization when the 8-core amd's are showing high usage on all 8 cores? Even bf3 MP (which loves threading) showed HT being a useful asset. For an example... go to page one of this thread.

Trust me, I'd love to say my 8350 tops a i7 3770k, but in all reality with proper utlization it will match it, slightly edge it out, or be very slightly behind it.

Now, you listen here buddy! You cannot go off spouting logic in an OCN thread especially if you're gonna be my nemesis. You stop that crap right now!
Quote:

Originally Posted by sherlock

If Intel think this show a real threat (that hyperthreading quads no longer keep up with AMD octas in multithreaded games, and new game will demand more physical cores), Broadwell dieshrink do give them a real opportunity to go to 6 cores on mainstream. For now what they could do is either boost 4770K stock Frequency/allow full turbo multiplier on Quadcore boost or introduce a higher clocked 4790K(as leaked road map shows a >=4770K in Q3).

Another thing I wouldn't rule out is for Ivy-E to introduce a Hexcore 3820 replacement as well as Octa core for the 3930K successor, certainly doable given it have already been done with Gulftown (added 2 core across the board with dieshrink).

Intel's edge in die size( Ivy die is 1/2 the size of Vieshera) also give them more price flexilbility if the need to lower price emerges(like this). Competition is a good thing.

Intel execs after seeing Crysis 3 CPU benchmarks "oh, AMD finally going to make us release 6 and 8 core CPUs to the consumer level? Darn, I guess this means we can't get that 200% profit margin we've been enjoying the last 3 years"

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er

Intel lost this one hard. How is Intel going to keep up with AMD once games start to use 8-Cores? I mean Crysis 3 uses ~ 6-Core. If they tested 3770K the 8350 would probably still edge it. If games fully use 8-Core i can see 8350 edge out even Intel 6-Core CPUs which is sad. 4770K is not going to cut it. We have had 4- Core CPUs long enough now. Really 3770K should have been 6-Core by now @ $300. AMD has to stop Intel more to wake them up.

I agree. I think Intel held back because they knew they could get away with it. That's why I am rocking a 2600k and not a 3770k. the 3770k SHOULD have been 6 cores 12 threads. The 4770k SHOULD be 8 cores 16 threads.

 

[Partol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

So you are telling me that showing little to no HT use on the quad cores is a sign of proper HT utilization when the 8-core amd's are showing high usage on all 8 cores? Even bf3 MP (which loves threading) showed HT being a useful asset. For an example... go to page one of this thread.

poor performance on hyperthreaded intel cpu's does not necessarily mean there is special game code to use or not use hyperthreading. Windows has core parking and possibly other features which might affect performance of hyperthreads. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as special game code to use hyperthreading.

Looking at cpu usage on page 1 of this thread, I see that the 8-core FX cpu is not fully utilized, while the 6-core FX is more fully utilized, and 4-core FX is almost fully utilized.
This indicates that this Crysis 3 benchmark does not process 8 threads simultaneously.
My guess is .... 4-6 core intel cpu's with hyperthreading appear to be underperforming because the game only uses approximately 4 cores (simultaneously). Hence, little or no benefit to turning on hyperthreading.

If crysis 3 only uses 4 cores, then why aren't more intel cpu's at the top?
Looking at the cpu benchmark charts, I see that cpu's with the most cache are near the top.
cpu's with the least cache are at the bottom. Perhaps crysis 3 runs better with more cpu cache memory?

Cpu usage on the core i3 (with hyperthreading) does look oddly low. The only explanations I can think of are: (1) core parking or (2) the game uses all the resources of each core and there are not enough resources left to use the hyperthreads .... not enough cache memory or (3) maybe they installed the "bulldozer core parking hotfitx" onto the intel systems. For AMD cpu's with modules, parking one core in each module may improve cpu performance. But for intel cpu's, it's probably better to either use default windows core parking or turn off core parking.

The big assumption in my reasoning is that these charts are accurate. If these charts are skewed and not fair, then my conclusions may be utterly wrong.