It's only the i7 and only in that one chart. The i3 acts as you would expect. It's surely just a bug with that particular mantle build
-
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.
AMD Mantle: A Graphics API Tested In Depth (TH)
- Thread starter cheesyboy
- Start date
It's only the i7 and only in that one chart. The i3 acts as you would expect. It's surely just a bug with that particular mantle build
He's right, this man understands what he's talking about. Sack the Toms guy and hire Martini
I am installing Thief at the moment, when done I will run a single 290X on my 4930k using 4 cores @3.5ghz the same as a stock 4770k.
In theory the 4770k should score a frame or two more than mine at the same clockspeed due to better efficiency. It will be interesting to see what happens.
In theory the 4770k should score a frame or two more than mine at the same clockspeed due to better efficiency. It will be interesting to see what happens.
With the 290X you should be able to match or beat this at the same clock rate.. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26574209&postcount=400
I would retest it all at stock to give you a proper comparison, but i don't have time now and wont be able to for a few days. when i get back
With the 290X you should be able to match or beat this at the same clock rate.. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26574209&postcount=400
I would retest it all at stock to give you a proper comparison, but i don't have time now and wont be able to for a few days. when i get back
I may struggle as I have got one of those crap intel CPUs that Tom's is warning us about.
I think we're all agreed that 4770k result is an anomaly. To be fair, TH said themselves it was an anomaly and double checked it.
I would be very surprised if it still occurred with the driver updates which have passed through since the tests.
Assuming the Thief results are from the built in benchmark at max settings I have the following comparison from my 4770S (3.9Ghz)/290X combo (Cat 14.4):
290X Stock:
DX11 - 62.3
Mantle - 69.8
290X OC:
DX11 - 66.6
Mantle - 74.4
Still lower than the 8350 + Mantle 290X score listed by Tom's but more in line with expectation
290X Stock:
DX11 - 62.3
Mantle - 69.8
290X OC:
DX11 - 66.6
Mantle - 74.4
Still lower than the 8350 + Mantle 290X score listed by Tom's but more in line with expectation
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I think some of their results are too high as well.
They are only using the High Preset which is quite easy.
I have just done a Mantle run using the same preset @1080p as them.
Their settings
My settings
4930k on 4 cores @3.5 no turbo
290X @1000/1250
Mantle
DX11
I will also do another couple of runs with the CPU @3.9ghz, the same as a 4770k using it's turbo.
Their settings
My settings
4930k on 4 cores @3.5 no turbo
290X @1000/1250
Mantle
DX11
I will also do another couple of runs with the CPU @3.9ghz, the same as a 4770k using it's turbo.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
FX 8350 and 290X wins in Thief that 2fps max is not the same as 7fps extra on the minimum. 7fps minimum is nothing to sniff at sometimes that can be the difference in 280x v 290x in benchmarks. But then i look at the 4770k and 290X and wonder wth. How come 37fps minimum on the 4770k under Mantle versus 55 on the FX 8350?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The results aren't accurate though, that's the crux of the matter, they're not in any way valid, as Kaap has just shown.
Yea i just realised the 4770k is wonky and had to edit. 30fps difference in 4770k and 8350 with 290x both under Mantle. I think Toms are tards half the time they do this on motherboard reviews too with Sata. Almost like someone gave them a incentive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'd say it's incompetence rather than them meaningfully making AMD look better than they are/Intel worse than they are.
When it comes to things like that, AMD do it themselves
When it comes to things like that, AMD do it themselves
That seems a bit harsh. They did spot it, retest it, and state in the article that it was both an anomaly and something which they couldn't come up with an explanation for, beyond the fact that Mantle is considered by AMD to be in a Beta phase (i.e. that it's probably a bug of some type).
The 290x performance under DX looks to be below par all round, relative to the 780Ti. But these were old drivers TH was using.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,506
- Location
- Dormanstown.
It doesn't matter if it's harsh.
Why bother going through the effort to produce something that's unreliable and not viable? The results aren't accurate so the comparisons aren't accurate. It's incompetent to release something like this at this current time.
Their 290X results across the board are much lower than they should be. For all we know so are their 780Ti results.
Review sites have a responsibility to produce accurate and up to date results (At the time of the review), as people will buy based on their results. If their results are BS then people can make poor purchases.
Why bother going through the effort to produce something that's unreliable and not viable? The results aren't accurate so the comparisons aren't accurate. It's incompetent to release something like this at this current time.
Their 290X results across the board are much lower than they should be. For all we know so are their 780Ti results.
Review sites have a responsibility to produce accurate and up to date results (At the time of the review), as people will buy based on their results. If their results are BS then people can make poor purchases.