Advice on i5 or an AMD piledriver

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Skyrim with mods is more GPU limited than anything from my experience,and I am running dozens of them,and I have tested it with both an overclocked HD7850 and a GTX660.

My mate has an FX6300 at 4.3GHZ and an HD7870LE and seems more limited by his GPU with mods with SR.

Having said that I know people running it on much worse rigs at 1920X1080.

If you have problems running plain Skyrim without mods(especially without the HD pack) on any modern CPU above £50 and a graphics card above £125,I think its more PEBKAC.

Two consoles have been out for a few months now, how many 8-core games have shown up for the PC that have been made for the consoles originally?

CryENGINE3,Frostbite 3 and id Tech 5 also show scaling upto 8 threads and were designed with consoles in mind too.

UE3 was designed with the last generation of consoles in mind and was one of the first engines to show scaling to 3 to 4 threads. You can see where UE4 will head.

Of course you know that and that is why you have a overclocked Core i5 not a Pentium dual core or Core i3 in your rig.

Nosedive is absolutely the correct word to use.

How else would you describe a situation where it's able to keep up with the big boys (The i7's etc on BF4) and then unable to keep up with i3's (Skyrim)

That's a nosedive.

The FX8320 is Core i3 money though at most retailers(you know that).

 

[Martini1991]

The FX8320 is Core i3 money though at most retailers(you know that).

That absolutely does not detract from the nosedive statement being true.

And the Haswell i3's are ~90 quid to 120 quid, and FX8320's are like 110~120 (So not always the same price)

But I've always stated I'd never ever suggest an i3 over an FX8320.

But that doesn't change anything really, nosedive is absolutely what happens.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That absolutely does not detract from the nosedive statement being true.

And the Haswell i3's are ~90 quid to 120 quid, and FX8320's are like 110~120 (So not always the same price)

But I've always stated I'd never ever suggest an i3 over an FX8320.

But that doesn't change anything really, nosedive is absolutely what happens.

I am not seeing this nosediving even at a LAN where I was watching people running Skyrim on multiple rigs??

I just get the impression its all relative TBH,and I have played hundreds of hours of Skyrim.

It will be interesting to see of double blind studies were done,whether most of us would be able to tell things apart at times!!

I have more or less ripped out the original art style with the amount of modding I have done. Characters,landscapes,etc all different.

Skyrim is FAR more GPU limited with modding.

The mods eat VRAM and GPU power for lunch.

 

[Martini1991]

But you're changing the goal posts with the modding scenario.

The CPU goes from keeping up with i7's to losing out to i3's, that's a nose dive.
That's not saying it doesn't give more than playable performance, that's just a description of what happens.

 

[~>Dg<~]

you choose a i5 system with slightly slower gpu or a 8320 system oc it and a faster gpu.

i5 regardless is quicker overall. no games even battlefield utilize at any real difference more than 4 cores and wont for years yet.the bench mark showing level par is on single player which means nothing !



so pick i5 or amd 8320 and be happy don't argue on here your head will hurt

 

[ALXAndy]

Two consoles have been out for a few months now, how many 8-core games have shown up for the PC that have been made for the consoles originally?

Not really overnight, as the answer is 0.

So far, using engines designed for the consoles we have - (remembering that game devs got the console spec, blueprints and dev kits long before the consoles were released)

Far Cry 3. Uses 8 cores.
Metro : Last Light. Uses 8 cores.
Crysis 3. Uses 8 cores.
COD Ghosts. Uses 8 cores.
Battlefield 4. Uses 8 cores.

If you look at the launch list of big games the ones above are all the most recent. It also coincides with Windows 8 using 8 cores, most probably because it will be (in some shape or form) the OS for the Xbox One. It also supports (Windows 8) HSA, or to fully put a term on it, AMD's heterogeneous architecture.

So I will stand by my comment, thanks. Once the consoles have 8 cores and the devs get their head around coding for them then every game ported to the PC will support 8 cores.

It would actually be harder to make games that don't support what the consoles are doing harder.

P.S. I really, honestly couldn't care what Skyrim does. It's an old game and the hardware to handle it has been around for ages.

FFS next thing we'll be saying Fallout 3 (a game from 2008) is hard to run maxed out on mods.

PC gaming is only as good as the last game released.

 

[~>Dg<~]

show me fps difference from 4 fast cores to 8 ? there is none !

u brought the marketing in truth there is no difference ! stop buying into console 8 sales talk.

by the time we need utilize 8 cores in games both the new consoles and pcs we use will have bit the dust you talking 5 years plus yet.


haha could care about skyrim one of the only true cpu hungry games that shows the biggest difference between amd and intel lol.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

But you're changing the goal posts with the modding scenario.

The CPU goes from keeping up with i7's to losing out to i3's, that's a nose dive.
That's not saying it doesn't give more than playable performance, that's just a description of what happens.

Except its Core i3 price though! On a certain large site the FX8320 is 49% of the price of the Core i7 4770,45% of the price of the Core i7 4770K and 62% of the price of the Core i5 4670K. I would expect the Core i5 4670K to be 60% faster than the FX8320 in SR to be similar value.

Since SR is lightly threaded,the FX8320 will Turbo to around 4GHZ,as opposed to the FX8350(4.2GHZ) meaning they are similar speed.

Look at the TH review of the FX8350:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Q/357650/original/skyrim-1680.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/R/357651/original/skyrim-1920.png

The framerate is still over 60FPS with even a Phenom II X4 965 which is ancient. The card used was a GTX680,so anything slower will probably mean more of a GPU bottleneck,especially with mods.

Lets look at the other scenes with more of a variation and showing the older Intel CPUs in a better light:

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-fps.gif

That is with a pre-overclocked HD7950 3GB.

Over 60FPS at 1920X1080.

SR has become some kind of measurebating tool for enthusiasts.

The rest of us just play it and get decent framerates even on less capable hardware. Thats most of the millions of people who play it.

Its like with WoW. Go on forums - you NEED an overclocked Core i5.

Actually talked to people who play WoW,and the vast majority don't have anything near that.

A number of the people actually contributing some of the biggest mods,also don't have mega rigs.

There is a big difference between needing and WANTING certain components.

 

[Martini1991]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts-pc-performance,3683-10.html

Wasn't aware the 2500K had 8 cores, it must do to be beating the FX83XX (And given the overclocked 2500K gives more FPS, it's CPU bound at this resolution, but the point was 8 threaded engines, 8 core CPU's aren't always giving the best results, or the FX83 would be ahead regardless)

 

[Martini1991]

Except its Core i3 price though! On a certain large site the FX8320 is 49% of the price of the Core i7 4770,45% of the price of the Core i7 4770K and 62% of the price of the Core i5 4670K. I would expect the Core i5 4670K to be 60% faster than the FX8320 in SR to be similar value.

Since SR is lightly threaded,the FX8320 will Turbo to around 4GHZ,as opposed to the FX8350(4.2GHZ) meaning they are similar speed.

Look at the TH review of the FX8350:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/Q/357650/original/skyrim-1680.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/R/357651/original/skyrim-1920.png

The framerate is still over 60FPS with even a Phenom II X4 965 which is ancient. The card used was a GTX680,so anything slower will probably mean more of a GPU bottleneck,especially with mods.

Lets look at the other scenes with more of a variation and showing the older Intel CPUs in a better light:

http://techreport.com/r.x/amd-fx-8350/skyrim-fps.gif

That is with a pre-overclocked HD7950 3GB.

Over 60FPS at 1920X1080.

You've put far too much effort into this.
I'm literally not fussed, it's a nosedive regardless of whatever spin's put on it (If we don't move goalposts to put the bottleneck on the GPU)

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You've put far too much effort into this.
I'm literally not fussed, it's a nosedive regardless of whatever spin's put on it (If we don't move goalposts to put the bottleneck on the GPU)

Which is irrelevant. People are attempting to make it sound like you cannot play games like SR unless you have an Intel CPU and especially a Core i5,which is the whole point of noisedive spin.

Its measurebating.

So now 60+ FPS is unplayable.

Oh! Wait!! Everyone has 1 billion hz monitors.

Its a load of bull.

 

[Martini1991]

People aren't making it sound like you can't play SR with the FX, Doomed said it nose dives, and it does.

I just gave a little explanation, unless you don't call matching i7's to losing out to i3's a nose dive, but obviously Doomed is.

 

[ALXAndy]

show me fps difference from 4 fast cores to 8 ? there is none !

Are you bloody mad? Go and take a look at the Cinebench, or Asus benchmark thread.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

People aren't making it sound like you can't play SR with the FX, Doomed said it nose dives, and it does.

I just gave a little explanation, unless you don't call matching i7's to losing out to i3's a nose dive, but obviously Doomed is.

Which is what he is trying to do. Spend more on the Intel CPU since you cannot play SR on the FX8320 because it "nosedives" to 60+ FPS at 1920X1080.

Its the same measurebating response when people say that someone should ditch a perfectly good Core i5 2500K for Haswell,just because at 320X240 it might be 15% faster and PCI-E 2.0 will destroy framerates.

I must ask the 10+ people I know who play SR,two of which have Core i5(me being one of them),how they manage.

I have much worse hardware then many of you lot and so do my mates. If I listened to half the stuff on forums,I would be a console gamer by now.

 

[Martini1991]

You're going OTT here Cat, just give it up.
He's not pimping out the i5 over the FX83 at all, he's just calling it what it is.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You're going OTT here Cat, just give it up.
He's not pimping out the i5 over the FX83 at all, he's just calling it what it is.

He is pimping it and SR is one of the worse examples you can use.

Performance has changed over multiple patches done by Bethesda and the community.

I have a played a ton of Skyrim myself with dozens of mods.

 

[Martini1991]

So, you're ignoring this little snippet ;

While skyrim is still easily playable on an AMD chip

Said Doomed.

When Aston villa went from 2-0 to 2-2, would you not call that a collapse?
Same type of situation in a different area.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Are you bloody mad? Go and take a look at the Cinebench, or Asus benchmark thread.

show real benchmarks that are accurate in gaming ! there is no difference from 8 vs four fast cores at the moment. you choose to eliminate skyrim because you have a fx why because the difference can be 50+ fps from a i5 to a 8 core fx in certain areas lol.

you bring the only benchmarks that favor a 8 core yet we on about gaming ! in gaming sorry i5 is better but a amd 8 core is adequate and a decent performer. there are no games that show a real gain from a i7 to i5 so its all down to budget at end of day.

as said 8320 and oc or i5. be happy both are different.

 

[Martini1991]

Well my i7's a quad core and it's beating 8 cores in Cinebench

Derp.

 

[~>Dg<~]