whoever made the chart dun goofed.
-
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.
BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
whoever made the chart dun goofed.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Did you see me say it was unoptimised for Intel? no, it's just also optimised for AMD which is a rarity. As for pretending it doesn't happen, AMD got over a billion pay out due to Intel being proved to have paid people to not sell AMD computers and over a VERY long period and the settlement was only that small because AMD couldn't afford years more of court cases against a ridiculously sized legal team from Intel. Intel could have lost the case and paid billions more but dragged it on till AMD were bankrupted.
This has happened MULTIPLE times to multiple companies in the past, for instance iirc Creative did this to, I forget what the other company was at the time. IE AMD got 1.25billion, had they not been in debt and not been desperate for the cash that pay out would have been several times bigger at least. Intel DO do this, it's fact, everyone knows it, it's not a big secret.
AMD paying companies to not sell AMD parts is really bad, software houses using the best compiler for the most widespread in use CPU's is far less "bad" but it is a very significant disadvantage. Dice can't afford to not optimise for Intel for the very same reason, many times more people have Intel cpu's and they aren't actively hurting the majority of people who will play their games, however they have an added incentive to optimise further for AMD this time around and hence AMD performance seemingly taking a rather large jump compared to Intel in older games.
Soldato
And how do we know this?
It's not just bad, it's also stupid. No wonder they were almost bankrupt
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
bah, Intel
Soldato
Quite surprised by the FX-6300. Seems a bargain basement cpu that packs a reasonable punch. Nice to finally see games making full use of all the cores and threads available.
Soldato
as long as i can play medium 1080p 50+ frames like i did in the beta then im happy 
Soldato
I think AMD will dominate the entry level gaming market - maybe this is the biggest slice but don't know if it's the most profitable.
The APU's will get stronger and gain lots of traction with the new SR cores. The question is for the mid to high end if/when they are putting something out?
The APU's will get stronger and gain lots of traction with the new SR cores. The question is for the mid to high end if/when they are putting something out?
Well somepeople on hear was previously saying you need an i7 to play this game properly in ultra which is utter sheet!!!
The graph doesn't show the performance for i5's/i7's running at 4.5-4.6Ghz which is what most people aspire to use (or higher) in a gaming rig. At 4.6Ghz an i5/i7 should destroy the amd 8*** series. But more importantly play a min of 60fps with one or more gpu's at 60hZ.
The graph doesn't answer any questions about cpu utilisation...
which is utter sheet!!!The graph doesn't show the performance for i5's/i7's running at 4.5-4.6Ghz which is what most people aspire to use (or higher) in a gaming rig. At 4.6Ghz an i5/i7 should destroy the amd 8*** series. But more importantly play a min of 60fps with one or more gpu's at 60hZ.
The graph doesn't answer any questions about cpu utilisation...
Caporegime
You'd need the latest i5 overclocked to beat an overclocked FX8350, and it wouldn't destroy it in anyway shape or form, it'd only just edge it (But as I say, limited sequence, may not be the case, that's just going off these results)
It does fly in the face of people saying you need either an i7 or FX83 for the best performance however (True on the i7 part, but that graph shows an i5 4670K will be up there/slightly edge the FX83 but then again which neither of them offer the best performance at their stock clocks, this could just be due to the sequence they used, and when they're both overclocked won't have the same results as that graph, as we can see from the FX9590 results, you can easily get top class performance with the FX83, but the i5 will be doing the same. But then again, we don't know if the 3970 is at a bottleneck, etc etc. Easier to just say both CPU's give good performance and there's no concealable difference between the two.)
On a single GPU however, if we're to half the GPU results, you'll have the same FPS on the FX83's, i5 4670k, i7.
I wish there was overclocked results and Ivy results to be honest.
For CPU utilization, you can see it in their review.
Latest MSI Afterburner allows you to see CPU usage without any modifications.
It does fly in the face of people saying you need either an i7 or FX83 for the best performance however (True on the i7 part, but that graph shows an i5 4670K will be up there/slightly edge the FX83 but then again which neither of them offer the best performance at their stock clocks, this could just be due to the sequence they used, and when they're both overclocked won't have the same results as that graph, as we can see from the FX9590 results, you can easily get top class performance with the FX83, but the i5 will be doing the same. But then again, we don't know if the 3970 is at a bottleneck, etc etc. Easier to just say both CPU's give good performance and there's no concealable difference between the two.)
On a single GPU however, if we're to half the GPU results, you'll have the same FPS on the FX83's, i5 4670k, i7.
I wish there was overclocked results and Ivy results to be honest.
For CPU utilization, you can see it in their review.
Latest MSI Afterburner allows you to see CPU usage without any modifications.
Last edited:
Soldato
The bars are stacked on top of each other - add the avg and min, and you get the total length.
Caporegime
I think there's a few percentage between clock for clock in gaming based tasks.
But in most games they're at the GPU bottleneck anyway, so the difference is null.
Maybe Techspot will have Ivy results.
What, A 3.5Ghz i7 is 144 fps verse a 112 fps 9590 at 5.0Ghz....Intel clock per clock destroys it and even when the amd is clocked much higher also...
The way i read that chart is that a 5.0Ghz 9590 AMD is pulling 112 frames whilst an i7 is pushing 114 at 3.5Ghz......So what is gonna happen when an i5/i7 hits 4.6Ghz?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Depends which i7/i5 we're on about.
The Sandy i7 fully overclocked will edge the AMD FX9590 (Which is 4.7GHZ, not 5GHZ)
The i5 4670K will edge it/parity (Depends on clocking, scenario, we still don't know just how limited this sequence is)
The 2500K could go either way (I'm edging towards a 5GHZ FX83 over it)
3570k, needs results.
The Sandy i7 fully overclocked will edge the AMD FX9590 (Which is 4.7GHZ, not 5GHZ)
The i5 4670K will edge it/parity (Depends on clocking, scenario, we still don't know just how limited this sequence is)
The 2500K could go either way (I'm edging towards a 5GHZ FX83 over it)
3570k, needs results.
Soldato
Safe to say my 4.5GHz 3770k is still alright then 
Caporegime
But the i7 and FX83 are in different price markets.
I'm still all for IPC and high performance cores.
But you can't take anything away from AMD with their performance in this game.
Soldato
Going completely the opposite direction, I'm surprised how well the i3s perform.
Caporegime
It's single player, it'd change drastically in MP.
You could play a different sequence, get some heavy explosions going on, and shake up the results.
You could play a different sequence, get some heavy explosions going on, and shake up the results.
Last edited:
Soldato
This is what happens when stuff is compiled and optimised for AMD's instruction set, people absolutely and completely ignore that Intel has such a stranglehold on the industry and are so favoured by MS/other software makers that most is compiled with Intel compilers that does as little as possible to optimise for AMD.
Intel and AMD have dozens, hundreds of ways to short cut results, combine calculations and optimise throughput and effectively huge amounts of software just don't make full use of an AMD core and the performance available.
It shouldn't be any surprise at all, in the slightest that an AMD core in a game that worked hard with AMD to optimise performance performs significantly better than in other software which basically optimises for Intel and not AMD.
For those who think Phenom 2 was a better core, it categorically wasn't, it was just older and better supported, Bulldozer and even more so piledriver is without question a move forward, AMD will always struggle with 1-2 year lag in improved CPU vs being optimised for
AMD can't really win, we've had 15 years of Intel paying computer manufacturers not to use their stuff and paying software manufacturers not to optimise for them, considering that, their lack of money and process node disadvantage AMD are way way way ahead of where most companies would be. Considering Intel's advantages and well, illegal activity their "lead" on AMD, also considering R&D spending, is pretty pathetic.
Is pretty much bang on.
Nice to see you here dude. I like your insightful posts