-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
4670k 3dmark (13) Firestrike Physics scores..
- Thread starter ALXAndy
- Start date
Ehh, you want to compair game performance of CPU's at different pricepoints, but use a benchmark to do it... You ain't getting any useful data out of this except CPU X beats CPU Y in *Insert test*.
Also, please tell me whether you are a developer for DICE/AMD as you seem to know about console and BF4 performance in advance. OR are you just guessing based on news items?
Thought so.
Also, please tell me whether you are a developer for DICE/AMD as you seem to know about console and BF4 performance in advance. OR are you just guessing based on news items?
Thought so.
There are very few fair ways of judging a game's performance. When I mean fair I mean uses the hardware properly. Otherwise? well you just have a loaded test in favour of <insert product or company name here>. Whilst 3Dmark isn't a game it is very similar in many ways. It uses all of the hardware running a visual benchmark using the same techniques a game would use.
As for DICE and your sarcasm bit? Frostbite has always used everything you can throw at it. DICE have always fully embraced PC hardware and their games even support the oddball stuff (such as 4 way SLI and Quadfire as examples to this).
I've benched BF3 against my old Xeon, FX was miles in front. I would have a look at this video.
For a rough idea of how well it uses cores. I would then have a read of this.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
Like, actually open your mind and read it. No I don't work for DICE, but I tend to open my mind when looking at computer hardware. When the writing is on the wall? it's time to read it. Every developer asked.. That good enough?
I'm still waiting for the magic moment where a last-gen CPU suddenly becomes a superpowerful gaming monster machine in future games, when currently it is being beat by CPU's with much less in em.
So far it's been just rumors and dev talk. I'll believe you when it actually happens. BF3 still performs better on 4-core intels than 8-core AMD's despite your video.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307366
So far it's been just rumors and dev talk. I'll believe you when it actually happens. BF3 still performs better on 4-core intels than 8-core AMD's despite your video.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307366
It doesn't perform better.
And that's using Windows 7 which has issues with FX CPUs. Just in case you wanted to dispute the above...
There. Happy now? There's absolutely nothing in it at all.
BF3 is an old game. Going onto something newer? the AMD pulls ahead. Not by a million miles, but it is ahead and it costs £113 for an 8320. Dropping to the 6300 pretty much gives you 2500k performance as I've maintained throughout this and other threads on here.
Here, this is how well your Intel IPC works in Crysis 3.
Welcome to the jungle on my Xeon (I5 2400). My FX gives over double the frames.You can add Far Cry 3 to that too, given it uses the forward looking Cryengine 3.
It's hard to find benchies for those games that have been done in 1440p where the GPU was not the bottlenecking factor. Of course you'll see similar framerates across all CPU's if it's not actually the real bottleneck. You're completely ignoring that 64-player test above there that needs real CPU grunt.
The AMD offerings are great for their price, but what I am saying is that those 8-cores will not turn into super-powerful gaming monsters in the future as they are not so in current games either.
The AMD offerings are great for their price, but what I am saying is that those 8-cores will not turn into super-powerful gaming monsters in the future as they are not so in current games either.
I tried benching the 64 player map and it's nigh on impossible. The variables are always different. Side by side benchmarks always tell the real story.
As for the 8 core CPUs turning into super powerful gaming monsters? they already were dude.
The main problem was AMD doing things in reverse. They love taking big gambles. Take the X64 CPU for example. When AMD announced that every one scoffed saying how it was stupid, no one used more than 3GB ram etc. Then look at the now. People with 16GB ram in their PCs.
Bulldozer was disappointing because it simply wasn't supported in anything, other than a couple of apps that aren't too exciting (like Winzip for example
) but the fundamental stuff was all there, there just wasn't any software support. Due to that reviewers ****ged it off, which gave it a bad name. All Piledriver is in essence is a controller refresh. The modules (with two cores on each) are exactly the same, the controller in front of them has just become more efficient.At its heart? Piledriver is a great technology. No, it's nowhere near as quick on IPC as Intel but then it wouldn't be, given it's a four year old tech (it's based on Magny Cours IIRC). It's just cheap, man. Really cheap. No CPU that costs £113 should go anywhere near a CPU that costs £240+. But it can, and it does, and it will.
What's in the consoles is essentially identical to what AMD are selling their end users. Thus, even though they may not be the fastest they will have full unbiased support. And they have price on their side. £80 for a FX 6300 and it will be more than enough for gaming.
People have become absolutely obsessed with stupid minor details (like how 3 FPS makes AMD CPUs inferior and incapable, power consumption stats that work out to about £5 a year, etc etc).
It's all about money. The Athlon XP CPUs were so cheaply made it was hilarious. You certainly didn't need to delid one and woe betide you if you accidentally turned on the PC without the cooler attached
But they were cheap as balls and bloody great for gaming on.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,960
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
When i first got my 4670K and Z87-A i benched at 4Ghz and 4.5Ghz on 3dmark. Can't be bothered running it again but my results from then were:-
4670K @ 4Ghz stock volts.
Cpu Cache stock
Ram 8Gb DDR3 @1600mhz
Palit GTX670 Jetstream @ stock clocks.
Fire strike Physics score 8139
4670K @4.5Ghz 1.280v
CPU Cache @4.2Ghz
Ram and gpu same as above
Firestrike Physics score 9099
4670K @ 4Ghz stock volts.
Cpu Cache stock
Ram 8Gb DDR3 @1600mhz
Palit GTX670 Jetstream @ stock clocks.
Fire strike Physics score 8139
4670K @4.5Ghz 1.280v
CPU Cache @4.2Ghz
Ram and gpu same as above
Firestrike Physics score 9099
Awesome thanks ! It's looking more and more like the 4670k closed the gap between the 3570k and 8320. Great choice in GPUs too dude
Thinly-veiled fanboyism seems rampant.
Yup 100%
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Only in properly multi threaded games, and they're few and far between
If you want to see what the CPUs can do in actual games, then load up the bleeding game lower the resolution and bench that, then you'll see Intel stomping all over your FX CPUs.
Only in properly multi threaded games, and they're few and far between
If you want to see what the CPUs can do in actual games, then load up the bleeding game lower the resolution and bench that, then you'll see Intel stomping all over your FX CPUs.
YAWN.
Do you kick off arguments in the Firestrike GPU thread?
Lower resolution you say?
Please please please take a read of this before you post anything else in this thread.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen
I really, truly loathe to start sounding like a cracked record but let me just put this really simply.
3dmark Firestrike and Cinebench do a very good job of accurately statting a CPU in the hierarchy list. Then when you look at games that support the FX the results are pretty much the same. However, the price is not.
8320
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-337-AM
4670k
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-470-IN
So if you were smart then obviously you would realise - £60 extra to put toward an SSD or GPU, with the latter (GPU) being the most important part of any gaming rig, once you have a half decent CPU.
And that's pretty much how it is. If you want to argue and debate about it any more please start a thread titled "AMD VS Intel the big argument" and list out all of the things that are really not important (like power use that saves you £5 a year, etc, etc).
Otherwise? please treat this thread as a representation of how a CPU, made by any company, stacks up when it's being pushed balls to the wall.
Then, instead of replying with inflammatory posts like the one above you can instead reply with "nice score dude !" or something constructive like that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
You've made this thread not as a comparison, but as a bait tactic.
If this was a comparison thread, then you would post a scoreboard and not get so defensive for the first half dozen posts because you thought Martin was attacking you based on your purchase decision.
Congratulations on finding a game where the FX beats an Intel CPU though! Nice score!!! Just so happens to be one of those games where they're properly multi threaded!
If this was a comparison thread, then you would post a scoreboard and not get so defensive for the first half dozen posts because you thought Martin was attacking you based on your purchase decision.
Congratulations on finding a game where the FX beats an Intel CPU though!
Nice score!!! Just so happens to be one of those games where they're properly multi threaded! You've made this thread not as a comparison, but as a bait tactic.
If this was a comparison thread, then you would post a scoreboard and not get so defensive for the first half dozen posts because you thought Martin was attacking you based on your purchase decision.
Congratulations on finding a game where the FX beats an Intel CPU though!
Bait tactic? no not really. It would be a bait tactic if it was 100% loaded in the favour of the 8320 huh? but it isn't. The 4670k Martini tested was just ahead of my 8320 (400 points) yet the 8350 went ahead of that. Take it to I7s? the AMDs would get a battering and rightly so.
I've not put the scores in the OP because I cba right now. I may do so soon
As for Crysis 3? yeah it's awesome. So is Far Cry 3, BF4, BF3, BFBC2 etc. From pretty much now on any game developed for a console will work in exactly the same way. So that was what I based my purchase decision on (well, that and the fact I saved £60 on the CPU alone).