AMD smoothness tested.

d_brennen · 26 Jan 2012 at 00:19

Martini1991 said:
16% at 1920xx1080 with a 7970 comparing a stock 2500k and stock FX8150.
But that's not what we're getting at, it's the fact a vast amount of people haven't said "No difference", which doesn't make sense, since we're all agreed, to the naked eye, there isn't much difference in gaming.

You've had your fair share of high end AMD and Intel gear, do you believe in this phenom-enon (titter)? Serious question, I haven't had enough hands on with similar spec CPUs from both companies at the same/short space of time

Gashman · 26 Jan 2012 at 00:24

I am inclined to agree, especially with the reactions on Anandtech forums and Semi-Accurate and such, the Intel users are just coming out with the 'its obviously bias...' statement all the time, reverse that with all the Intel friendly benchmarks and its all totally acceptable. hell some people are even accusing them of cherry picking games, doesn't really make a difference that the game in question is one of the most demanding and popular titles around, what better game to test? something lovely and Intel friendly that nobody actually uses, guessing that would be the obvious choice.

so many people, so freaking many have been so sucked in by their own belief that 'Intel are gods incarnate' that they can't accept the fact that in the real-world, the one we actually live and breath in there isn't a massive, enormous Intel advantage. also just because people haven't picked no difference that makes it obviously biased? ever stopped for one tiny second to consider that perhaps this legendary 'smoothness' people talk about is actually true for whatever reason, or is that impossible to believe? :confused:

Martini1991 · 26 Jan 2012 at 00:30

d_brennen said:
You've had your fair share of high end AMD and Intel gear, do you believe in this phenom-enon (titter)? Serious question, I haven't had enough hands on with similar spec CPUs from both companies at the same/short space of time

I'm a believer in the "No difference" in the vast majority of games.
For it to be swayed heavily either way would make me believe it's biased.
The AMD and Intel preachers both make me laugh.
Statistically, Intel is the better choice for gaming when you compare figures and not perception.

Gashman said:
I am inclined to agree, especially with the reactions on Anandtech forums and Semi-Accurate and such, the Intel users are just coming out with the 'its obviously bias...' statement all the time, reverse that with all the Intel friendly benchmarks and its all totally acceptable. hell some people are even accusing them of cherry picking games, doesn't really make a difference that the game in question is one of the most demanding and popular titles around, what better game to test? something lovely and Intel friendly that nobody actually uses, guessing that would be the obvious choice.

so many people, so freaking many have been so sucked in by their own belief that 'Intel are gods incarnate' that they can't accept the fact that in the real-world, the one we actually live and breath in there isn't a massive, enormous Intel advantage. also just because people haven't picked no difference that makes it obviously biased? ever stopped for one tiny second to consider that perhaps this legendary 'smoothness' people talk about is actually true for whatever reason, or is that impossible to believe?

You talk about about the "Intel way of thinking" But in that own right, you're very AMD biased.
AMD smoothness? Give me a break. I still regularly build AMD PC's, but it's a bunch of crock for those trying to make their purchase seem better than it was.

Trunks9486 · 26 Jan 2012 at 05:24

It would be interesting if OCUK organised such an event itself and invited everyone to go and try it out.

I would be really interested to see the results of the forum people here!

Emlyn_Dewar · 26 Jan 2012 at 07:54

Martini1991 said:
AMD smoothness? Give me a break. I still regularly build AMD PC's, but it's a bunch of crock for those trying to make their purchase seem better than it was.

Agree with this.
I've had numerous AMD gaming setups and have not found them to be any "smoother" than similar specced Intel machines.

The smoothness is something that gets thrown out there, when AMD are far enough behind to make their CPUs a questionable choice.

Scali · 26 Jan 2012 at 08:25

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The author of the blog has had a dislike of AMD for years. Someone else on OcUK linked to his blog a few months ago and I read through it(what a waste of time). He also deleted loads of comments on his blog entries when people questioned what he was talking about(even the article linked to has 7 out of the 11 responses deleted).

Hello, I don't like it when people spread false information.
Firstly, I rarely delete responses at all, and if I do, it's generally spam-related.
Secondly, even if I do delete posts, how could you possibly tell? You can't see that on the blog.
I do see 7 pingbacks on the linked blog entry. Are you trying to pass off pingbacks as deleted comments, and then falsely claiming that they were comments that questioned what I was talking about?
That would be rather sad. Especially since there are tons of blog entries with tons of comments questioning me, which I didn't delete.

xsistor · 26 Jan 2012 at 08:48

Yeah I think he's confused the pingbacks with deleted posts.

@Cat I'll reply to that original post later today if I find the time.

Zuban · 26 Jan 2012 at 09:05

i went from a x6 to an i7, only changed mobo and cpu, rest of the machine was identical, 6950(unlocked shaders), didnt notice any difference in smoothness however the fps in most games was higher, significantly higher in some cases. I have 120hz screens so if anything i'm getting a smoother gaming experience because my screen is capable of displaying the extra fps.

edscdk · 26 Jan 2012 at 09:15

Phreaky said:
Why on earth would it preclude them to think the second one was better, instead of worse? What a ridiculous comment

look at what derren brown does, you are VERY easily infulenced. It would be interesting to have the test done again with two identical systems with everything else as it was in the first test to see what people say...

I am not saying the test was incorrect just that without knowing all the facts and repeating the test it is only an interesting experiment not scientific proof...

littlepuppy · 26 Jan 2012 at 10:52

See this old thread i put up about just this issue

Some good links in there

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18174788&highlight=amd+username_littlepuppy

xsistor · 26 Jan 2012 at 11:01

littlepuppy said:
See this old thread i put up about just this issue

Some good links in there

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18174788&highlight=amd+username_littlepuppy

The minimum framerate advantage as mentioned in those threads doesn't hold as objective benchmarks show sandybridge has both better min, max and average FPS over BD/AMD processors.

What might hold as the only argument (and this is purely hypothetical at this point) is if the frame times are more consistent on AMD (i.e. microstutter related issues)... In this instance Intel's speed advantage might actually hurt it if there are times when the frame time delta drops. Even if, on average it is higher. Because humans can detect such inconsistency. i.e. even if Intel consistently maintains near-constant deltas between frame times, and at some points these deltas drop to AMD levels, while AMD more consistently maintains a lower delta in general, then this could be a possible explanation for perceived smoothness. There may be others, possibly... but I'm not aware of them.

A subjective test such as the one performed is far from conclusive because you do not design an experiment on perception so naively. That is the reason I object to it. To do so is either ignorant or dishonest. A test on perception could be hampered by any number of biases, not least of which is the order in which the systems were presented, or the woefully small sample size which can easily explain skewness in the results. If a test on perception is to be meaningful it would need a very large sample size, and require more rigorous techniques to neutralize any biases -- and require the input of a psychologist. Not a bunch of guys (non-experts in both human perception and experimental techniques) just hashing it out with a few rigs at a convention.

To reiterate, I don't have problems with whether AMD has more consistent framerates or not. What I criticize is a method of inquiry that is both non-rigorous and potentially fundamentally flawed -- and this points to either ignorance or dishonesty.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
There are cases when a certain person has been correct about Nvidia many times in the past and yet you call them shills paid by AMD/fanbois.

Also it does not change the fact the blog owner has deleted multiple posts on his own blog which has questioned what he has said(I was actually following one for a while) - he has even been on the comments of several articles whinging about AMD.

You have offered no explanation to why the results in the OP have turned out the way they are,yet instead link to some article about a server marketing guy who himself admitted he screwed up.
Whats that got to do with the OP then?? Now do you think HardOCP have twisted the results as they set everything up?

Using your logic, no one should also trust whatever Intel or Nvidia ever say and YOU should quote claims which they made were wrong too. If you go back far enough each company has made claims which ended up not being entirely true. God forbid that marketing tries to make their product look better shocker. That is the objective way don't you think?

Edit!!

If you bothered to look,the game run was BF3 BTW which is GPU limited for the single player missions.

... And you say you're a biologist. You should know better.

I fully intend to write more on this later, when I have more free time, but rest-assured. I have no problems with taking Intel or NVIDIA to task. I was the first and only person to decry, on these very forums if you care to find the posts, Intel's labeling of its tri-gate transistors as 3D transistors. Knowing full well the wrong impressions it conjures in the minds of those without a background in electronics.

As for your allusions to my abject disdain for what can only be Semiaccurate and its Charlie Demerjian, I don't think that's worthy of even a response. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. But for good measure: He's an obvious non-expert in engineering -- a journalist who memorized a glossary of engineering terms -- talking about engineering topics with a false sense of authority. Anyone with expertise can see how thin and ridiculous his claims are. In his universe Intel is crap and NVIDIA GPUs don't work. He doesn't understand how complex the design process is or how it works. He uses this ignorance to nitpick, and then thinks he has disproved the validity of an entire design like Fermi.

In A Mathematician's Apology the renowned Cambridge mathematician, GH Hardy, draws a line between the creators and the appreciators or critics. The act of creation he describes as a higher calling. He says, "Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds." And he goes on to say, "It is a melancholy experience for a professional mathematician to find himself writing about mathematics. The function of a mathematician is to do something, to prove new theorems, to add to mathematics, and not to talk about what he or other mathematicians have done."

The same is true of engineers or physicists... Or any other creative endeavor.

There is a profound lack of knowledge in the things Demerjian talks about. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect all around. He doesn't know enough to know what he doesn't know, and neither do his readers. It is like the argument of an Intelligent Design creationist -- the fancy language may dazzle and convince non-experts, but the errors and obvious show of ignorance lie in subtle nuances and implications in the language.

That's all I'll say about that waste.

buchtis · 26 Jan 2012 at 11:08

Not read the whole thread but I have no idea how it's smoother as the Intel processors get more FPS than AMD. More FPS = smoother at least to me.

:confused:

littlepuppy · 26 Jan 2012 at 11:09

Good points mate,

I have no bias either way, running intel at the moment , but I am consistently impressed with AMD rigs for gaming, if thats all you do I cant fault AMD...

Its an interesting topic though!

Final8y · 26 Jan 2012 at 12:56

The article said gaming experience, not FPS or smoothness.

Example: One had the game capped at 60 fps the other Vsynced at 60 FPS you would have a different gaming experience between the two.
There's more to an experience than just raw fps.

Martini1991 · 26 Jan 2012 at 16:26

Final8y said:
The article said gaming experience, not FPS or smoothness.

Example: One had the game capped at 60 fps the other Vsynced at 60 FPS you would have a different gaming experience between the two.
There's more to an experience than just raw fps.

Which will be the "smoother" one.

Final8y · 26 Jan 2012 at 22:12

Martini1991 said:
Which will be the "smoother" one.

That is subjective in its application and not by definition because each have their drawbacks and which matters more is down to the individual and each individual will choose what suites them to be smoother.

Martini1991 · 26 Jan 2012 at 22:13

Final8y said:
That is subjective in its application and not by definition because each have their drawbacks and which matters more is down to the individual.

I can never make sense of what you post.

The "test" was about perception to the individual.

Final8y · 26 Jan 2012 at 22:15

Martini1991 said:
I can never make sense of what you post.

The "test" was about perception to the individual.

Yes it was and it can not be defined by any one thing, but for some reason people have took it upon themselves as smoother when no such thing was mentioned.

Martini1991 · 26 Jan 2012 at 22:20

Final8y said:
Yes it was.

You confuse the hell out of me.
You said it wasn't a test of smoothness, I said that's what they were comparing, you said that's subjective, I said it's a test of the individuals perception of the smoothness (As how else are they going to decide which is better) and you agree?

Final8y · 26 Jan 2012 at 22:25

Martini1991 said:
You confuse the hell out of me.
You said it wasn't a test of smoothness, I said that's what they were comparing, you said that's subjective, I said it's a test of the individuals perception of the smoothness (As how else are they going to decide which is better) and you agree?

No i don't agree, as im sure it said experience and not smoother.

Which is the better experience, the mouse and KB or the Contoller, Eyefinity or 3D.