• 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.

xfire msi 290 oc with 8350

Martini1991 said:
I'd say Dawn of War 2 to prove a point, but that'd be me being an arse :p
Click to expand...

Lol. I don't have that game.

Avenged7Fold said:
One with BF4 and another with a less threaded engine and without mantle?

OP has recent posts in the BF4 fps thread, so i assume he plays that.
Click to expand...

I can bench BF4 easy enough, but with no in game benchmark its not very consistent. Maybe pick something with a built in benchmark.

Tonester0011 said:
There isn't much point mate, FS you're heavily GPU bound. In game actual benchmarks would be nice, but would require the help of an 8350 owner with XF290s to compare.

You should in pretty much all cases outperform a 290X setup with an 8350 compared to your inferior cards and an aging 2700k.
Click to expand...

I was surprised to see his Firestrike score higher than Kaaps.
 
Don't think any of those games would need a second 290X?? All of them will be easily maxed and still run 100+fps, exception being Arma3.

Thief is another Mantle game, and Titanfall is source.
 
I'll list the games i can bench, with a reliable in game benchmark.

Aliens Vs Predator
Bioshock Infinite
Dirt 3
Dirt Showdown
Hitman Absolution
Metro 2033
Metro Last Light
Sleeping Dogs
Sniper Elite 2
Tomb Raider
 
In game benchmarks are usually the worst to be perfectly honest with you (I remember Just Cause 2's being absolutely horrendous to monitor game performance) :p

When I did reviewing, I just did a a level, so for AVP, I'd play to a certain point with each set up, recording the FPS.
 
Martini1991 said:
In game benchmarks are usually the worst to be perfectly honest with you :p

When I did reviewing, I just did a a level, so for AVP, I'd play to a certain point with each set up, recording the FPS.
Click to expand...

That's too inconsistent. Fps can vary too much on playstyle. Lets just keep it simple for now.
 
LtMatt said:
That's too inconsistent. Fps can vary too much on playstyle. Lets just keep it simple for now.
Click to expand...

In game benchmarks very rarely give you any useful FPS on running the game, far more pointless because they're very much irrelevant.

Games aren't consistent by their very nature, you do the absolute best you can do, keep to playing the same, doing the same thing etc.
 
Martini1991 said:
In game benchmarks are usually the worst to be perfectly honest with you :p

When I did reviewing, I just did a a level, so for AVP, I'd play to a certain point with each set up, recording the FPS.
Click to expand...

Built in benchmarks are the only way two people can compare and be pretty much certain they've not done anything to skew the results in their favour.

I agree that running a level is a true representation of the game, but impossible unless you're the person doing both sides of the testing.

Wish i've not vowed to buy anymore components till Haswell-E/Maxwell!! :D (skint! :p)
 
Martini1991 said:
In game benchmarks very rarely give you any useful FPS on running the game, far more pointless because they're very much irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I find in the games i listed above it gives me a pretty good indication of what performance i can expect in game.
 
Tomb Raiders was duff when I ran that.
AVP's was pretty duff as well.

I keep having nightmares of Just Cause 2's.

Crysis 1's, oh dear, diabolical.

Shogun 2's, that was pretty duff as well, less CPU intensive than the actual game was.

Pretty sure I've heard comments on Hitman's being gash too, can't say I've had experience of the others, I just play the games.

Thinks can happen in a game that flat out don't happen in the benchmark.

Ideally you want a person with both set ups doing it, I could live with the inconsistency personally (Unless he's going to stand looking at a wall for half an hour) :p

Literally the only one I can remember being indicate of game performance is DOWII's, that's pretty true to the game.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Looks like all of us who use SB Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs need to ditch it for Crysis3 right,especially those of us who don't overclock.

:o

Crysis3-2_zps59011560.png


Crysis3-1a_zps1a12252a.jpg


Crysis3-1_zpsb94742f3.jpg


Crysis3-3a_zpscd8fab1b.png
Crysis3-3b_zps85116911.png

OTH,it could be just a continual moving target so people can just justify buying new hardware every 3 months,which I suppose if you are a hardware enthusiast(and less of a gamer) I suppose is justified in its own right.

I can kind of understand it,the upgrade itch can be quite hard to get rid of. One of my mates built three different rigs and bought a new laptop one year to satisfy it!! :eek:
Click to expand...

x6 1090T still doing well, its very good in BF4 too.

I think it depends on what games are played, the FX-83## does have very good performance in a lot of games, even if it doesn't match or beat the Intel most of the time, its no slouch.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom