It would be interesting to see some frametime results between the i3 and FX CPUs.
-
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)
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
It would be interesting to see some frametime results between the i3 and FX CPUs.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
If I owned a Titan X I'd be disappointed too.
I'm just sick of the current GPU performance from a single GPU. Going from a 7970 which debuted in the dying days of 2011, I don't feel we've gained anywhere near enough performance.
Well you have exposed my lack of knowledge about i3s, so thank you for pointing out my mistake a you should do, I am here to learn after all. I mistakenly thought the lower intel on the lists was and i3 or equiv, which of course is just wrong.
I still think dave is being a bit misleading though, as it does appear, or at least imply, that an i3 is the recommended choice. As you said, this is a little shortsighted.
Quite.
All I ever see is the Intel Witnesses on the aggressive. When some one talks BS it's quite hard to accept it so the natural knee jerk is always going to happen. You see something that's BS and you ask yourself whether you can just let it slide or whether you should put some one straight.
It's quite hard to allow some one to unfairly **** something off so your initial reaction is to dive in and sort it out.
And that's all I ever see. I never see AMD users on the attack, just rightly defending what they do have. I've also never seen an AMD user get all deluded and make stupid claims about their hardware, just responding to show things how they actually are.
And it gets really, really tiring when you have a troll that can basically post something in a few seconds and then start an argument that takes more time to sort out.
It gets really tiring. So tiring that I usually don't even bother checking this section of the forums any more.
At least on the GPU area the fanboys have their threads and have been staying away from each other quite well.
That's fair enough, it's just that you implied it applied to AMD, when it really applies to all graphics cards out now, especially if you feel Titan X performance isn't enough (ignoring its atrocious pricing) then clearly it's just an issue with graphics cards you have and not vendor specific.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
The i3 2100's not exactly having a smashing time. But it was an 80 quid CPU from 2011. But Dave hasn't removed it from the benchmark, so it's plain to see. I guess I'll change my stance somewhat, and specify modern i3's. He also doesn't hide away from how pitiful the Pentium is (Which I've been critical of, I hate it, I hate the fact Intel never released an unlocked i3) the i3 2100's been replaced many times. The "old" excuse could be used with AMD, if AMD had any new CPU's out.
But if you owned an i3 2100, you'd be on the 1155 socket, you'd just bang in upto a 3770K in the system as an upgrade, so it's not like they're "stuck".
To say an i3 is a recommend choice would just be plain wrong though. The modern i3's fare much better, but the i3's are just budget CPU's (And starting to become stupidly priced, I'd much sooner pick an FX63 over one, and have in systems.)
I guess based on the title you could say misleading, but all you have to do is look at the post and gauge information for yourself, when Dave's mentioning i3 in the title, (To me) I knew that he'd mean the modern i3's.
Either way, that modern i3's pattering along on nigh on the same price as the FX83, you'd be silly to buy it
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I never said it was vendor specific, I applied it to my own card. It being AMD was somewhat moot.
Quite strange that I have to post this, but at the bottom you see me looking at this thread, shortly followed by browsing OcUK for processors.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
I'd charge your battery 
I don't need you to prove anything to me. I'm just a guy on the internet.
I don't need you to prove anything to me. I'm just a guy on the internet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,754
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
I would love an i5 or at a step up an i7!
But I wouldn't simply for the fact that firstly for the £100 and the time it will take its not going to make a difference to what I am doing at the moment which is mostly work and playing some diablo 3, BF4 with the odd hour I may get.
My cycle of upgrading is roughly every three years, with a GPU more frequent. If I was naive or lacked knowledge it would be inaccurate threads like this brainwashing me to buy an i3 as it "again" beats an FX - which it doesn't.
Whatever is out in 2016 that is best for the price is what I will probably shift to. I would be kind of hoping some APU system would be considerable but that's being very optimistic.
But I wouldn't simply for the fact that firstly for the £100 and the time it will take its not going to make a difference to what I am doing at the moment which is mostly work and playing some diablo 3, BF4 with the odd hour I may get.
My cycle of upgrading is roughly every three years, with a GPU more frequent. If I was naive or lacked knowledge it would be inaccurate threads like this brainwashing me to buy an i3 as it "again" beats an FX - which it doesn't.
Whatever is out in 2016 that is best for the price is what I will probably shift to. I would be kind of hoping some APU system would be considerable but that's being very optimistic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
How is my X3350 @ 3.7GHz going to perform on this?
Is my FPS going to be dramatically reduced?
I'm just hoping any reduction is not bad enough produce rage induced buying
I'd be expecting poor performance
To be completely honest I wouldn't even bother 'upgrading' my 8320 to a I5.
I found out recently that the I5 does not have the full instruction set of the 8320. So had I tried to compile a Hackintosh stick on an I5 I'd have found out that VMWARE would not have even run on an I5, due to an instruction it wanted.
I also would not have been able to run HyperSLI on an I5, again due to the same thing. I can't remember specifically what instruction it is all I know is that on the K series I5 it has been cut out.
As such the only clear upgrade would be an I7 and at current pricing that's not even tempting for me.
I don't understand why the Pentium K is sat at 0 in those benchmarks but don't worry, I'm currently building a pocket sized PC with a Pentium K and a Titan Black in it* so I will be sure to load GTAV on there and see if it can kick it.
I just hope 4gb of RAM in Windows 7 will be enough for the game to run.
Actually I just checked the min spec and apparently 4gb is enough to play the game.
* The Pentium is just a toy for me atm. I will very possibly put in one of the I7 alike Xeons for £170 or so.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 20,754
- Location
- Officially least sunny location -Ronskistats
No I was not tempted to 'upgrade'/'sidegrade' but if the FX did perform as badly as the odd guy on here purports I would be moving on.
An i7 would be a lovely jump but it would be wasted on me at present and I don't have £200 or so floating around to do so.
This is why I want to see what real people are seeing in GTA5 using an FX build (thread started in GPU forum by Andy) and hitting back with feedback.
The game being able to use all the cores/threads should actually give it a decent chance to play - probably some optimisations, patches and gpu drivers down the way but should be achievable.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,586
- Location
- Rutland
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
This is a family forum
That's filthy.
Its one of the reasons I went for the X79/2011 setup as it supports VT-d, etc. which the "consumer" i5s don't.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,294
- Location
- Dormanstown.
Artificial market limits.
Only reason it works for them is because they're doing it from a position of strength.
If the game wasn't such a cluts to install I would install it on my wife's rig which is pure AMD. Sadly right now I have a build on the go and that has been eating up all of my time.
Her rig does have a DVD drive fitted so that helps. Maybe over the next few days I'll try and find the time to get it installed on there and run some benchmarks.
Thing is, dude, every one with an AMD knows that once you overclock them they change things completely. Stock clocks on the 8320 are actually pretty terrible and this is why benchmarks are absolutely useless to me as they never overclock the AMD.
I mean there is the 9590 or whatever it's called so I usually just look at that and go by those results.
Yup, that's the bugger. I went to compile an OSX stick on my big rig and found out that for some reason the motherboard disables VT-D when you start overclocking so I had to turn it back on. VMWARE refused to even start.
The AMDs support absolutely bloody everything you could possibly need, which is a huge plus if you are into your virtual stuff and need those instructions. And you can still overclock the AMD with it all enabled too.