• 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.

GTA5 CPU Benchmarks (I3 beats FX yet again)

Dave2150 said:
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.
Click to expand...
A well clocked 8320 looks like it should get 50 FPS at minimum from the graphs you posted, assuming the graphics cards are up to it. Quite possibly the graphs are wrong, but given you posted them I'm not sure why 32FPS now?
 
David Bisset said:
A well clocked 8320 looks like it should get 50 FPS at minimum from the graphs you posted, assuming the graphics cards are up to it. Quite possibly the graphs are wrong, but given you posted them I'm not sure why 32FPS now?
Click to expand...

Seems so. Maybe an interpretation error by the OP using graph wars but to no avail! :cool:
 
Rroff said:
API bottlenecks are often called CPU bottlenecks but won't always be manifest as a core or cores working flatout - the CPU could be feeding the GPU as fast as it is able but not utilising the full extent of its capabilities due to render API inefficiencies.

Also your missing that the i3 is 2 real cores + 2 hyperthreading units - compared to all the other CPUs having atleast 4 real cores - so those 2 real cores have a ton of stuff whacked on them whereas on the other CPUs worker threads, etc. are spread out over the additional cores. (EDIT: As someone alluded to above 1 of those CPU cores is doing the grunt of the draw call execution as well as sharing incidental threading load whereas on the other CPUs its much more dedicated to rendering - which could have interesting implications as the AMDs might be putting up the same or lower performance numbers on paper but potentially could actually be smoother to play on as the cores aren't having to do acrobatics to fit everything in so to speak).

EDIT: For those that malign hyperthreading - that i3 there is showing them so wrong heh.
Click to expand...

Roff is absolutely bang on with this, it doesn't really matter how many cores you have DX11 is so that only one ever handles the calls between the CPU and GPU, where THAT performance is crucial the one with the 'faster per core performance' is the one that ultimately wins.

So its no surprised that in some DX11 games, such as this, the i3 wins is raw FPS.

Having said that i also wouldn't have an i3 over an FX-8300 or an FX-6300 for this or any other game.

Why, because the i3 only has two cores, no matter how fast those cores are the chances are the Draw Call thread is shared with AI, Physics, shading, lighting ecte... which at least could add latency and task queuing which could result in choppy gameplay. And with over 90% load on one of the i3's threads that CPU is clearly overworked and not happy. Windows will consider a thread with that much load on it overloaded and switch tasks on it to one with much less load, only problem is the other one is just about as heavily loaded.

Not impressed, not interested in the so called Intel i3 merical.

The FX CPU's with the amount of cores they have will always have at least one dedicated to Draw Calls and Draw Calls alone.

FPS on a slide mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
Dave2150 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's capped to 1080p@30 FPS on the consoles, which most of the FX CPUs exceed. I'd hazard that they optimised the game enough to get 30 FPS on the consoles and left it there (FX-8 architecture but only at 1.6 GHz).
 
Last edited:
.... I smell BS in this. If the top image shows FPS ? then yes. BS I can assure you my [email protected] with a 970 is a LOT faster than this is showing :L. With the same settings at the top of the image

EDIT : By this i am not saying any certain chip is slower than this i just don't fully believe in the accuracy of these tests! i would love to know there methods.
 
Hi, this is my spec

AMD 8350 @ 4.4ghz
MSI 290 OC Gaming edition
8GB 1866mhz ddr 3

Im running GTA V with mostly all settings on very high to high with 2x msaa on and im getting around average 55 fps, it can drop to 45 fps, so i don't know how these benchmarks were done, its not the best but aint as bad as that, love to see another review of amd cpu running gta v ,

i would love to get an I7 i know it would improve gaming a lot, but with skylake coming better to hold off ?

Thanks
 
uscool said:
Hi, this is my spec

AMD 8350 @ 4.4ghz
MSI 290 OC Gaming edition
8GB 1866mhz ddr 3

Im running GTA V with mostly all settings on very high to high with 2x msaa on and im getting around average 55 fps, it can drop to 45 fps, so i don't know how these benchmarks were done, its not the best but aint as bad as that, love to see another review of amd cpu running gta v ,

i would love to get an I7 i know it would improve gaming a lot, but with skylake coming better to hold off ?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I would wait for Skylake, You will need a new motherboard so I get ddr4 as well!
 
I've been toying with the idea of getting an i7, but I'm still to come across a game in which I can't get a playable ~60fps at 1440p ([email protected], CF 290X).

Once games dip below the magic 60, then I'll be looking to purchase a new CPU.
 
Bonjour said:
I've been toying with the idea of getting an i7, but I'm still to come across a game in which I can't get a playable ~60fps at 1440p ([email protected], CF 290X).

Once games dip below the magic 60, then I'll be looking to purchase a new CPU.
Click to expand...

hi, i think this is the game, i have 8350 @ 4.4 and R290 MSI OC , at 1080p at high it goes below 60fps and i can see stutter
 
An i7 in this is not going to make much if any difference from an i5 as the call thread is worked hard and you only ever get one of those even if you have 4 big one + 4 little ones available.

Save yourselves about £100 and get an i5 it will run it just as an i7. if you can only afford £100 don't bother with the i3, go used i5 or an FX-6350.
 
Last edited:
Reaper 392 said:
Has anyone found some CPU benchmarks at more sensible settings with weaker/older CPUs? Before buying GTAV I want to make sure the game does'nt have to be turned down too much to get decent performance with my Phenom II X4 955.
Click to expand...

It doesn't look good for you Phenom. Even paired with a 970, you're looking at under 30fps if you don't turn stuff down.

http://pclab.pl/art57777-24.html
 
kristmace said:
It doesn't look good for you Phenom. Even paired with a 970, you're looking at under 30fps if you don't turn stuff down.

http://pclab.pl/art57777-24.html
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom