GTA5 CPU Benchmarks (I3 beats FX yet again)

[Dave2150]

Older CPU's (no Devil's Canyon)



So, a FX 9590, overclocked to 5Ghz, bumping out 220+ watts of TDP, is outperformed by an I3 4360 at stock speeds...

Quite interesting to note that this game is a port from consoles, including the new generation of consoles powered by 8-core AMD cpu's.

As we can see from the graphs above, the game is clearly well threaded, as the 5960x commands a healthy lead over the 4770k.

The Pentium G3258 also gets annihilated, showing that a dual core without hyper threading is totally useless for new games being released, regardless of what clock speed it's overclocked to (minimum fps of 11 when overclocked to 4.5Ghz)

Here's the CPU core utilization, to confirm the game is well threaded:

 

[Dave2150]

Regardless of the results, it's hilarious to see quite possibly the most anticipated PC game in the last few years be classed as cherry picking.

Yep, it's quite amusing to see them fretting Now they say there must be something 'fishy' as these results cannot possibly be correct, right?

Welcome to reality, where Intel CPU's are the best for gaming, period.

 

[Dave2150]

All I get from those graphs is that I'll be able to play GTA V on my 8320 with decent fps.

Sweet.

If you enjoy 32FPS then sure. Though it would be similar to the fps consoles gives, eliminating the very point of playing it on PC, imo.

 

[Dave2150]

Yeah, saw that a few days ago and even posted it in the GTAV thread in the PC games section. I don't expect to be running at max settings, but I want to find out roughly how low the game will need to be turned down to play it at 60fps most of the time. A mix of medium-high would be just fine, but a lot of low settings would not.

For me, performance in GTA5 matters most when there's lots of action going on. Whether it be a high speed chase involving 10-20 vehicles, or a huge gunfight, thats when the FPS matters most.

If you're FPS is jumping around during the hectic parts of the game, I for one would be very frustrated.

 

[Dave2150]

Well that sucks Intel as next upgrade it is then!

Yeh buddy, there's no other choice now. FX CPU's are shockingly bad.

Skylake will come out soon, which will further extend Intel's lead

 

[Dave2150]

Purchased yes, fully downloaded...nope I live in one of the slowest areas/roads for internet in the country (5 years of promises broken every time), so at 60gb I'm in for quite a wait. Not to mention I have to limit the speed further as I cant go without youtube etc.

Move house dude, it's 2015 and life is too short to spend in the dial up age.

 

[Dave2150]

And what's the point of that when the 990 board has more PCIE bandwidth than the Z97?

Sure, there's no MSATA (how long did that last before M2 replaced it?) or M2 but those are easily added via PCIE adapters and the board has more than enough PCIE lanes to deal with it.

Near on everything Intel have added to their boards is frivolous crap that never means anything. SLI actually runs better on the 990 boards than Crossfire does, which I find hilarious but there you go.

Looking at this -

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1911-gta-v-cpu-benchmark-4790k-3570k-9590-more

It's quite clear that the 9590 (which could be any FX 8 core, given they all overclock well) is within a whisker of the CPUs around it. 3570k etc there's like 2 frames in it.

And that seems to be a recurring thing in the latest games. There's literally nothing in it at all so your money should be going on a GPU, not a high end CPU.

I honestly do not expect Zen to have higher IPC than what Intel are making now. Zen, however, seems to be mental on core count, something Intel are holding back on. I remember reading an article where Intel were having trouble getting 12 Haswell cores to run properly so released a 10 core Xeon instead.

*IF* software finally starts to thread as it should (and does in workstations and servers) then Zen could well be the future.

So far to be completely honest there has been no reason why AMD should bother to release a new chipset.

Z97 will be replaced in June, July or August with Z107, which upgrades the DMI link from CPU to PCH from 2.0 to 3.0, doubling the bandwidth to 4GB/sec.

This will mean you can still have one of two GPU's using the 16 lanes from CPU to GPU's (x16 for one GPU, 2x8 for two GPU's) and still quite a few NVME PCI-E based drives using the PCI-E lanes from PCH to drive them.

In other words, it will be a non issue once Z107 launches, soon.

For those wanting more PCI-E bandwitdh, for 3 or 4 GPU's, x58, x79 and x99 all offer 40 PCI-E lanes from the CPU (apart from 28 lanes on the 5820K).

As Twst says, the AMD platform chipset is very dated and out of place in 2015, when you consider the features it supports. Then you have to consider the craptastic performance, TDP and power consumption of the FX CPU's. Not a wise choice today.

 

[Dave2150]

It would be less bad if it was all it was cracked up to be. As it stands it was 3% IIRC. Yes, that's well worth ditching my entire X79 set up and buying X99 for (My Titan Blacks do not allow the PCIE 3 hack to work on my CPU).

If I had used hindsight I would still be using my X58 rig. I had an I7 950 and fell for the hype of Sandybridge, buying an I5 2400. Total side grade. My results all came back absolutely identical to the 950. I could have easily made do with the 950 and my UD3 and then stuck a 5650 in and would have been perfectly current. I run four SATA II SSDs in here in RAID 0 and get a gb r/w. So all I would have needed to do was to buy two decent SSDs and put them in RAID which would have gotten around the SATA III missing issue.

I won't be giving up my X79 rig so easily. Give it a couple of years and there will be fast 8 core Xeons on Ebay for cheap.

It must have been user error, if your 'test' of Nehalem vs Sandybridge produced identical results

All the other reputable review websites demonstrated a decent performance increase, as well as hundreds of users on here who echoed the same results.

PEBKAC applies very aptly here.

Out of curiosity, was this comprehensive Nehalem vs Sandy Bridge comparison part of your review website when you attempted to be a professional reviewer? I'd quite enjoy reading through your findings, since you seem to challenge the results of every other review site on the planet (all of which were able to produce non identical results comparing Nehalem to Sandy Bridge).

Oh, and your 4xssd configuration with '1gb/sec writes' would be useless to most, as you have 60GB drives in raid0 as I understand it. You couldn't even install GTA5 on that

 

[Dave2150]

yeah x58 would still be going if it had sata 3 for sure

Still if AMD is perfect for everything i am struggling to see why even the 5820k has caught up and overtaken the 9590 in sales (slight edit for context)

you know since it's such a rip off and full of frivolous carp


jokes aside I do hope AMD actually hurry up and release a replacement for piledriver

Interesting to get inside information from OCUK on sales of these CPU's. Certainly seems to echo the majority of users opinions on these FX CPU's.