New consoles = better CPU optimization?

whyscotty · 14 Aug 2013 at 18:37

teppic said:
Ah ok, but the comparison is useful. We'll have to compare to LtMatt's.

Kaap is going to do the same with his 7970 at same settings as my rig

LtMatt · 14 Aug 2013 at 19:08

Reinstalling windows 8 after it decided to crap itself this morning, but when im done ill run a 7950 bench.

Kaapstad · 14 Aug 2013 at 20:57

whyscotty said:
Kaap is going to do the same with his 7970 at same settings as my rig

just sent the results to you but I can not access my email at the moment.

Kaapstad · 14 Aug 2013 at 21:14

Asus Matrix Platinum HD 7970 @1100/1650 stock
Catalyst 13.8
CPU 3970X @4.8
Memory @2400mhz 9-11-11-25

Titan @837/1502 stock
320.49
CPU 3930k @4.8
Memory @2400mhz 9-11-11-25

1080p options 2,2,1,4 used

HD 7970

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.44, 73.51, 29.95, 326.61, Welcome Center
7.11, 72.77, 22.59, 100.77, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.78, 78.18, 45.44, 101.60, Town Center
8.12, 74.80, 65.61, 94.79, Raffle
9.12, 99.20, 70.05, 120.93, Monument Island
3.03, 105.10, 91.88, 108.32, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.60, 78.87, 22.59, 326.61, Overall

Titan

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.33, 96.17, 45.57, 134.32, Welcome Center
7.08, 94.30, 29.19, 117.61, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.76, 97.81, 38.88, 113.75, Town Center
8.06, 94.76, 67.19, 115.71, Raffle
9.59, 133.92, 57.03, 179.10, Monument Island
3.01, 146.48, 138.04, 154.34, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.83, 102.60, 29.19, 179.10, Overall

1080p options 3,2,1,4 used

HD 7970

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.35, 94.91, 29.96, 378.85, Welcome Center
7.09, 93.38, 23.95, 136.72, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.72, 102.87, 52.44, 145.19, Town Center
8.09, 96.22, 84.32, 128.87, Raffle
9.56, 141.91, 110.19, 190.76, Monument Island
3.02, 153.92, 138.91, 158.44, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.83, 104.72, 23.95, 378.85, Overall

Titan

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.77, 117.33, 42.35, 196.94, Welcome Center
6.55, 119.32, 26.28, 311.94, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
22.18, 120.45, 22.91, 145.52, Town Center
8.07, 117.46, 66.53, 150.77, Raffle
9.05, 179.25, 58.08, 264.48, Monument Island
3.01, 199.41, 177.26, 220.26, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.65, 128.27, 22.91, 311.94, Overall

1600p options 2,2,2,5 used

HD 7970

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.78, 44.24, 24.39, 327.77, Welcome Center
6.66, 43.68, 23.84, 54.37, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.98, 44.73, 31.68, 51.74, Town Center
8.18, 44.12, 40.71, 53.96, Raffle
9.14, 56.22, 47.17, 64.44, Monument Island
3.03, 59.38, 55.05, 60.55, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.78, 46.23, 23.84, 327.77, Overall

Titan

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.46, 63.18, 32.51, 77.57, Welcome Center
7.11, 60.92, 17.18, 68.74, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.89, 56.83, 23.92, 91.69, Town Center
8.13, 56.54, 50.82, 66.12, Raffle
9.15, 78.43, 58.07, 94.77, Monument Island
3.05, 85.27, 79.91, 88.37, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.80, 63.16, 17.18, 94.77, Overall

1600p options 3,2,2,5 used

HD 7970

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.63, 59.72, 24.33, 382.92, Welcome Center
7.12, 58.71, 22.15, 84.81, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.88, 60.39, 39.15, 74.78, Town Center
7.62, 58.80, 52.26, 74.94, Raffle
9.60, 82.69, 65.48, 100.70, Monument Island
3.03, 89.53, 81.63, 92.72, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
81.87, 63.55, 22.15, 382.92, Overall

Titan

Per Scene Stats:
Scene Duration (seconds), Average FPS, Min FPS, Max FPS, Scene Name
32.81, 81.69, 38.24, 106.84, Welcome Center
6.59, 76.79, 17.86, 90.24, Scene Change: Disregard Performance In This Section
21.84, 69.87, 26.80, 78.75, Town Center
8.14, 68.77, 59.78, 81.26, Raffle
9.08, 104.22, 60.68, 136.49, Monument Island
3.53, 116.89, 107.39, 131.46, Benchmark Finished: Disregard Performance In This Section
82.00, 80.91, 17.86, 136.49, Overall

Kaapstad · 14 Aug 2013 at 23:02

What was the original question anyway.

zoomee · 15 Aug 2013 at 07:19

Kaapstad said:
What was the original question anyway.

Can I kill my neighbours dog if it attacks my family?.

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 12:43

Martini1991 said:
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-performance/page2.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-performance/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-performance/page4.html

And another review ;

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/bioshock_infinite_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,6.html

Some Crossfire/SLI scaling ; http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-770-gk104-review,3519-13.html (Unless Titan and 680 are achieving over 100% scaling, the single 7970 isn't faster)

I see this ; http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2309823 and it's under scrutiny from the get go and includes more benchmarks of the hierarchy as shown in the above benchmarks.

teppic said:
Are those on the latest drivers? I'm looking at this one:

(Source ht4u)

That's max settings, no AA. Latest AMD and nvidia drivers.

The thing about benchmarks is you can make one GPU look faster than the other by using one form of settings or a specific map and then turn around and make the other GPU look faster by using different settings or a different map.

There is no conformity between reviewers so the best thing one can do is find as many reviewers as one can and take stock of them as a whole.

----

Max settings + Ultra DOF @ 1080P

7870XT @ Stock
Max: 70 / Avr: 51.057

7870XT @ 1200 / 1550
Max: 84.58 / Avr: 57.50

Meh.... I really don't get why this game would be almost as demanding as Crysis 3, there is nothing in the GFX to suggest it should, it doesn't look great and a lot of the bits and bobs scattered around the game are not even tessellated, 2D plants and all that....

Kaapstad · 15 Aug 2013 at 13:58

humbug said:
The thing about benchmarks is you can make one GPU look faster than the other by using one form of settings or a specific map and then turn around and make the other GPU look faster by using different settings or a different map.

There is no conformity between reviewers so the best thing one can do is find as many reviewers as one can and take stock of them as a whole.

Comparing my HD7970 which @stock runs @1100/1650 to a stock Titan on near identical setups was a total non contest. The HD 7970 is not going to come out on top. To emphasis things even more out of the two cards I was using the Titan has more overclocking headroom than my HD 7970 which is already running faster than most HD 7970s.

Meh.... I really don't get why this game would be almost as demanding as Crysis 3, there is nothing in the GFX to suggest it should, it doesn't look great and a lot of the bits and bobs scattered around the game are not even tessellated, 2D plants and all that....

Bioshock is no where near as demanding as Crysis 3, to get over 60fps maxed @1600p on Crysis 3 you need 3 Titans, for bioshock you only need a single Titan.

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 14:06

Kaapstad said:
Comparing my HD7970 which @stock runs @1100/1650 to a stock Titan on near identical setups was a total non contest. The HD 7970 is not going to come out on top. To emphasis things even more out of the two cards I was using the Titan has more overclocking headroom than my HD 7970 which is already running faster than most HD 7970s.

erm? okay.... Your stating the obvious to me, I never said the 7970 was faster than a Titan, I think Nvidia would have a serious problem if their £900 GPU gets beaten by a £350 GPU.

mmj_uk · 15 Aug 2013 at 14:08

Might as well move this thread to the GPU forum.

Kaapstad · 15 Aug 2013 at 14:28

humbug said:
erm? okay.... Your stating the obvious to me, I never said the 7970 was faster than a Titan, I think Nvidia would have a serious problem if their £900 GPU gets beaten by a £350 GPU.

I would not, I would go and buy four.

What annoys me is not which card is faster, it is the poor standard of some of the reviews out there.

There was a recent post in the graphics section where a reviewer was trying to say the GTX 760 was faster than a HD 7970. Upon further investigation it turns out that the HD 7970 the reviewer was using was a dud and as he did not have a spare he used the results anyway.

Anyone who is not up on graphics cards could have based their buying decisions on his review.

teppic · 15 Aug 2013 at 14:38

Wasn't that the review where a 760 gave twice the performance of a 7970 in Unigine Heaven? The guy from the site said something like 'this is what we got, so we're not going to put anything else in'.

Kaapstad · 15 Aug 2013 at 15:19

teppic said:
Wasn't that the review where a 760 gave twice the performance of a 7970 in Unigine Heaven? The guy from the site said something like 'this is what we got, so we're not going to put anything else in'.

That's the one.

Terrible review.

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 15:38

Kaapstad said:
I would not, I would go and buy four.

What annoys me is not which card is faster, it is the poor standard of some of the reviews out there.

There was a recent post in the graphics section where a reviewer was trying to say the GTX 760 was faster than a HD 7970. Upon further investigation it turns out that the HD 7970 the reviewer was using was a dud and as he did not have a spare he used the results anyway.

Anyone who is not up on graphics cards could have based their buying decisions on his review.

As you did... :cool:

I think, is it 3 or 4 Titans you have?

Anyway, I did see that, it was posted all over UK sites by the same guy.

I should get back on topic before I get scorned

---

AMD could have used the CPU from the A10-6700, and that would probably have ended up with better performance.

I think AMD went down this rout quite deliberately (using 8 VERY slow cores)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ross-platform-play-teases-character-transfers

With some games as they currently are, running them on the PS4 would be like playing Crysis 3 on a 7950 supported by a Sempron CPU.
even with 4 of those PS4 cores loaded up its still like running C3 with a SB Pentium.

Developers will have to get multithreaded, that will benefit Intel as well as AMD, but it will also make AMD much more competitive than what they currently are.

More over, we all know about Nvidia PhysX,- gimped to one CPU core and the need to have a highly clocked Intel CPU just to make it playable.
Can you engine what that would be like on one (for Tablet designed) CPU core?

If Nvidia wants PhysX on the PS4, they will have to let it use all 8 cores or it will not work, the result of that is no more need for an Nvidia GPU to run Nvidia's version of Physics.

IMO this is AMD's attempt at throwing around some of those proverbial spanners.
And it may just work.

Martini1991 · 15 Aug 2013 at 15:40

PhysX on Consoles will be as PhysX is on consoles now, software, not hardware accelerated.

I thought this 3.0 was meant to be a decent change

?

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 15:48

Martini1991 said:
PhysX on Consoles will be as PhysX is on consoles now, software, not hardware accelerated.

I thought this 3.0 was meant to be a decent change ?

PhysX on Consoles is not x86, Jaguar is. just like every other mainstream CPU

Martini1991 · 15 Aug 2013 at 15:50

humbug said:
PhysX on Consoles is not x86, Jaguar is. just like every other CPU

Egh?

PhysX currently runs on PS3/Xbox 360 in software mode, it will be the same in the new consoles (I have no idea what them being X86 has to do with it, we run x86 in our PC's and run software PhysX), it won't be hardware accelerated (via GPU)

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 16:02

Martini1991 said:
Egh?

PhysX currently runs on PS3/Xbox 360 in software mode, it will be the same in the new consoles (I have no idea what them being X86 has to do with it, we run x86 in our PC's and run software PhysX), it won't be hardware accelerated (via GPU)

Software mode or not it still needs the support of hardware, just like emulators need hardware to run.

PhysX on consoles uses the IBM CPU instruction sets, which AMD CPU's do not have, I believe its x87, you know as well as I do how slow x87 emulation is on AMD CPU's
Nvidia will have to use the instruction sets on AMD CPU's, if it ends up good enough on an AMD Jaguar CPU core with 30% the performance of a Piledriver core, then its way more than enough for a Piledriver core.

Martini1991 · 15 Aug 2013 at 16:05

This new PhysX SDK is meant to be rewritten, using current instruction sets and better threaded, even if it allows us PC gamers on our higher end chips to run hardware accelerated, consoles won't be.

I was under the impression PhysX is no longer X87, or at least the newest SDK.

humbug · 15 Aug 2013 at 16:09

Martini1991 said:
They'd just run the same PhysX SDK we use now, since it's X86.

Over complicating things.

That's on Desktops ^^^

Its not over complicating things at all, its very simple, whatever is good enough for an AMD core that has 30% performance of their own Desktop CPU cores then its that much better for those cores.