• 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.

Homeworld: Remastered CPU Benchmarks

Dave2150

Dave2150

Dave2150

Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
10,411
Source:http://www.techspot.com/review/970-homeworld-remastered-benchmarks/page4.html

Quite interesting that a remastered title is able to take advantage of the 5960x's extra cache, cores and ddr4 to produce higher scores than the 4790k, even if it's only a tiny difference.

The AMD's get annihilated as usual, I5's showing a commanding lead over them.

SxyJx9v.png
 
Any game that takes advantages of new features is good!

Never played this title, will read up on it.
 
Yeah CPU bound games it is evident. Better threaded games the i3 is left for dust though - even compared to the 6 and 4 cores.

LfN88IO.png
 
Last edited:
Th0nt said:
Yeah CPU bound games it is evident. Better threaded games the i3 is left for dust though - even compared to the 6 and 4 cores.

LfN88IO.png
Click to expand...

Oh lord - you're aware that the Intel CPU's shown in that graph are almost 2 years old?

This may come as a surprise to you, but Intel release new CPU's every 6-12 months.

In your graph, we see a I3 2100 from 2011.

Lets take a look at BF4 performance using the newer Intel CPU's, including the I3 4000 series:

GV76t1X.png


Suddenly the I3's are not left for dust... Wonder why? Oh, because you were showing the 2 year old I3's.
 
Last edited:
The i3 2100 is from 2011.
And it doesn't miss off the higher tier haswell stuff.
And the graphs aren't comparable.

But meh, who needs facts.
 
Martini1991 said:
The i3 2100 is from 2011.
And it doesn't miss off the higher tier haswell stuff.
And the graphs aren't comparable.

But meh, who needs facts.
Click to expand...

Edited my post to show the I3 2100 from 2011. Further reinforces my point - Thont comparing 2011 Intel CPU's to current AMD FX CPU's, when there are far newer and faster I3's available.
 
Dave2150 said:
Source:http://www.techspot.com/review/970-homeworld-remastered-benchmarks/page4.html

Quite interesting that a remastered title is able to take advantage of the 5960x's extra cache, cores and ddr4 to produce higher scores than the 4790k, even if it's only a tiny difference.

The AMD's get annihilated as usual, I5's showing a commanding lead over them.

[/QUOTE]

From playing Homeworld Remastered myself i can say that graph is a heap of crap. I have an [email protected] and even with all settings maxed i have NEVER dropped below 60FPS.
Click to expand...
 
thebennyboy said:
From playing Homeworld Remastered myself i can say that graph is a heap of crap. I have an [email protected] and even with all settings maxed i have NEVER dropped below 60FPS.
Click to expand...

Homeworld Remastered was tested in a similar manner to StarCraft II. We played a skirmish with seven AI-controlled players in a 4v4 match. The resources were set to their maximum value and we went with a 15 minute build time so players could reach critical mass. Just moments before the first major battle was set to take place we made a save which could be loaded repeatedly.

As the test starts over 200 of my own ships engage the enemy and all hell breaks loose for two minutes. With the GTX 980 frame rates were initially around 140fps at 2560x1600 but that dipped down to 50fps as the ships began to engage each other.

So if we were to benchmark the game in the building stage, gathering resources and what not, then frame rates would be around three times higher than what we are going to show during our massive battle scene, so keep that in mind."
Click to expand...

Source (Scroll down to 'Testing Methodology'): http://www.techspot.com/review/970-homeworld-remastered-benchmarks/

They were testing a demanding part of the game - not some mission where there are 3 ships flying around only.
 
Last edited:
All cpu's seemed to load up on two cores only, wow what an amazing game dev, I'm impressed welcome back to 2006.

If you want to play the Intel vs Amd game then let's convert the fx83 into an
unshared 2c2T and run the test again.

 
If it's only loading two cores, making the FX 83 a 2 core still isn't going to make it better an i3 unless you're drastically higher clocked.
 
Dave2150 said:
Lets take a look at BF4 performance using the newer Intel CPU's, including the I3 4000 series:

GV76t1X.png


Suddenly the I3's are not left for dust... Wonder why? Oh, because you were showing the 2 year old I3's.
Click to expand...

You've made the wrong conclusion. All the CPUs in that chart manage 102 +/- 8 FPS. The i3s haven't shot up because Intel made huge leaps and bounds in the last year or two. It's because the test is not a good discriminator of CPU power, so they all manage about the same.

The difference between this BF4 chart and the earlier one is probably a combination of testing methodology (SP v MP?) and game patches, not incredible performance improvements in the Intel i3.
 
Martini1991 said:
If it's only loading two cores, making the FX 83 a 2 core still isn't going to make it better an i3 unless you're drastically higher clocked.
Click to expand...

I know that's my whole point it's only loading up two cores, are we now meant to buy only an I3 or just a pentium, you said in a post above, ''Although overall, it's not a great idea to pick an i3 over an FX83/63 for gaming''.

As we know the fx architecture only just starts to come alive around 4.7-4.8ghz. My point though is that making an fx8320 with an unshared module particularly in this game, ie 2 modules enabled with only 1 core active on each module. Will provide gains of around 5% as opposed to 1 module enabled with 2 cores shared. Yeah it probably won't beat a variation of an I3 until 5.1ghz but it's an en element that no-one has picked up on in this thread so far.
 
Davedree said:
I know that's my whole point it's only loading up two cores, are we now meant to buy only an I3 or just a pentium, you said in a post above, ''Although overall, it's not a great idea to pick an i3 over an FX83/63 for gaming''.

As we know the fx architecture only just starts to come alive around 4.7-4.8ghz. My point though is that making an fx8320 with an unshared module particularly in this game, ie 2 modules enabled with only 1 core active on each module. Will provide gains of around 5% as opposed to 1 module enabled with 2 cores shared. Yeah it probably won't beat a variation of an I3 until 5.1ghz but it's an en element that no-one has picked up on in this thread so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the shared floating point does make a difference.

I noticed when comparing my Athlon x2 270 to a dual core Kaveri in Cinebench (floating point dependent, much like games). Single core, the Kaveri gave my Athlon a beating. With all (two) cores firing, they were near identical.

Presumably, a lot of games aren't optimised to favour cores from separate modules?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom