BF4 Retail CPU scaling measured

ALXAndy · 31 Oct 2013 at 10:56

Martini1991 said:
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.

Can we put an end to that theory now please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EcXrgJLY0

As you (and any one else who watches it) can see, multi affects both CPUs in exactly the same way.

I'm not having a go at you, but it just seems that the "Oh but multi would be completely different" is an Intel "get out of jail free" card that people seem to brandish when talking about Battlefield.

That video pretty much covers it IMO.

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 10:58

Multiplayer does change it............... The results, for all the CPU's, it won't be the same as what the SP is, the results will be entirely different.
How is it an Intel get out of free card when I'm being quite pro AMD, stating the i3 wouldn't be as good as it is in SP etc.

Lol, you people...

ALXAndy · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:00

Martini1991 said:
Multiplayer does change it...............
How is it an Intel get out of free card when I'm being quite pro AMD, stating the i3 wouldn't be as good as it is in SP etc.

Lol, you people...

I know you're being realistic (let's call it that, not pro AMD). As I said I wasn't having a go, I just want to get rid of this BF multiplayer excuse.

Both CPUs take the same pounding in BF3.

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:01

It's a strange result.... From the chart everything scales linearly to 8 threads but falls off after that, had it scaled past 8 threads the 3970x would be yards past the result that they've posted

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:01

Subliminal Aura said:
It's a strange result.... From the chart everything scales linearly to 8 threads but falls off after that, had it scaled past 8 threads the 3970x would be yards past the result that they've posted

Not if it's at the GPU bottleneck.

Hades · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:02

Some strong price/performance there from AMD. A budget £75 board and £75 6300 looks fantastic value and the 8320 at £116 will overclock to 9370 performance quite easily.

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:02

Martini1991 said:
Not if it's at the GPU bottleneck.

Good point

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:03

ALXAndy said:
I know you're being realistic (let's call it that, not pro AMD). As I said I wasn't having a go, I just want to get rid of this BF multiplayer excuse.

Both CPUs take the same pounding in BF3.

It's not an excuse, it's far from it, I don't even say it as a positive for Intel, it just changes the results entirely for both sets of CPU's.

The i3 would become probably crippled in a 64 man server, etc (Funny get out of free card there like)

I'm going to stop closing my private browser, because everytime I come back on the forums, I see your posts, whereas usually you're on ignore, as I can't handle some of the factually incorrect things you say.

gpuerrilla · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:05

dmferrett said:
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.

This is the general consensus of an ill informed PC user. Yes intel are fantastic at their price point and do edge or beat convincingly the FX but we are talking processors that are way more expensive than the FX so your comparing apples to oranges when you take out the pricing.

I know some bang on about IPC but there's more to performance than just that. Some cores also don't clock so well, and not everyone on these forums overclocks their rigs they may like the option to.

I am waiting for some more testing with regard to how BF4 performs and a couple of users here have 7990's so we can actively see where/if there is a bottleneck or indeed a sweet spot.

wazza300 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:10

the little i3 530/540 isn't bad for a stock dual core,and those things oc like crazy

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:14

They're using a 7990, and it's bottlenecked by all CPU's upto the 3970 (Which itself may be bottlenecked)

It might be that specific limited sequence though.

I'm starting to think people don't understand what a bottleneck is.

And the FX8350 (Which is shown) and the i5 4670K are only 30 quid different in price, which isn't loads.

But there's a 60 quid difference between the i5 and the FX8320 (Which is the one to go for)

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:19

Martini1991 said:
But there's a 60 quid difference between the i5 and the FX8320 (Which is the one to go for)

Yeah but if the results are true and all you want to do with your rig is play BF4 then fair enough but for per core idle action (which your PC will be doing 95% of the time) then it's Intel all the way

A single core on the FX8320 really sucks no REALLY sucks and is seriously no match to Intel

dmferrett · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:20

Martini1991 said:
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.

The energy burn for a 5.0Ghz AMD is crazy for one and the 5.0Ghz chips cost similar or inbetween an i5/i7. If I'm not mistaken do not have pcie 3. So things are not all rosy with AMD cpu's.

Gpu wise I love AMD to bits, performance, value, overclock competitive the whole 9 yards.....

I can tell you straight I'm no Intel fanboy, Infact I'm no Nvidia Fanboy either because both companies stink!!! (Price fixing and poor value)

But for me this time round Intel offered more of everything except value I suppose.

The second AMD produce a chip that best's intel then I'm buying AMD.....Intel over the last 7-10 years have been the best performers in most metrics and certinaly in games.

Buy what you can afford and are happy with...........

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:22

I'd buy an i5 4670K over an FX8350 all day long (And well, own an i5 4670K at a higher than average clock at 4.75GHZ)

I'm no fanboy either (Well, apparently I'm a rabid Intel fanboy, but I find it hard understanding the logic behind that.)

Subliminal Aura · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:25

Martini1991 said:
I'm no fanboy either (Well, apparently I'm a rabid Intel fanboy, but I find it hard understanding the logic behind that.)

Deep down we're all AMD fans, had they delivered we would have still been in the camp

gpuerrilla · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:27

I would to be fair buy a 8320, so comparing that to a 4670k is £60-70 difference or greater than 150% which is doesn't perform 150% better.

BF4 is the only game so far to optimise in weight of AMD so as drunkenmaster has aptly put it, the more games will start turning the heads (albeit not many at the moment).

dmferrett said:
The energy burn for a 5.0Ghz AMD is crazy for one and the 5.0Ghz chips cost similar or inbetween an i5/i7.

This I just don't agree with, we have been over this in general hardware forum and it works out to be about £5 a year in extra consumption which is pathetic when you exceed that making a few brews whilst typing on these forums..

wazza300 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:28

I wonder how much is down to poor utilisation though? as you can see there's big improvements on this game with amd hardware

if only all games were developed the same way

Hades · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:28

dmferrett said:
The energy burn for a 5.0Ghz AMD is crazy for one and the 5.0Ghz chips cost similar or inbetween an i5/i7. If I'm not mistaken do not have pcie 3. So things are not all rosy with AMD cpu's.

The £116 8320 will overclock to almost 5ghz. Many people on this forum have shown that. Agreed that if you don't overclock then the AMD 5ghz isn't good value but if you're prepared to knock the 8320 up a few notches it's an absolute bargain and they all/most seem to get to 4.7ghz.

What's the real world benefit of PCIE 3?

Martini1991 · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:29

Subliminal Aura said:
Deep down we're all AMD fans, had they delivered we would have still been in the camp

Definitely agree.

I've only had one Nvidia GPU (Which was a GTX680 and I only had it a little while when I got my 120HZ monitor, and Nvidia don't do generic 3D support, so jumped on a 7970 DCII for 3D)

I'm gunning for AM3+'s successor, I'm hoping they skip Steamroller and bring out a platform with DDR4 quickly.

Or even if they bring out a new socket and do another Phenom II AM2+/AM3 again So Steamrolller works on AM4, and then Excavator has a DDR4 and DDR3 memory controller.

dmferrett · 31 Oct 2013 at 11:29

Th0nt said:
I would to be fair buy a 8320, so comparing that to a 4670k is £60-70 difference or greater than 150% which is doesn't perform 150% better.

BF4 is the only game so far to optimise in weight of AMD so as drunkenmaster has aptly put it, the more games will start turning the heads (albeit not many at the moment).

Since when has performance ever been proportionate to cost? Guess...