**LETS SEE YOUR PILEDRIVER OVERCLOCKS - LET ME START WITH 5GHz+!!**

[PCZ]

This may be a silly question and you will see from my rig I am not high end but.....

When you play in the real world do you notice the difference between 64 and 73 fps?

Sorry if a noob question?

It is more complicated than that.
There will be times when there is a lot going on in the game and the frame rates will start dropping.
Likely under the screen refresh rate.
This is very noticeable and not acceptable for many.

A weaker CPU will be more prone to this.
As the graph posted demonstrates the PD doesn't have a lot in reserve.

 

[sunama]

I think its the minimum frame rate which is key here.
Most times a slow CPU can handle the game, but when things get busy, your minimum frame rate is what needs to be looked at. This is the point where the game becomes very laggy.

 

[~>Dg<~]

depends on what what game and what engine also as said minimum fps makes a big difference


some engines are effected by fps like cod for eg so a lot play and set at higher fps 125,250, and so on

also you have 60 fps and vsync other things similar.

what i also gound that in bf3 for eg my fps may be similar from my old cpu on avg but the minimums are a lot higher on my i5 than my phenom set up

even though on benchmarks they show same or very similar (max fps)

10 or 15 fps difference can be the same as another card up from your current one so why limit yourself cpu wise if similar in price?

 

[humbug]

depends on what what game and what engine also as said minimum fps makes a big difference


some engines are effected by fps like cod for eg so a lot play and set at higher fps 125,250, and so on

also you have 60 fps and vsync other things similar.

what i also gound that in bf3 for eg my fps may be similar from my old cpu on avg but the minimums are a lot higher on my i5 than my phenom set up

even though on benchmarks they show same or very similar (max fps)

10 or 15 fps difference can be the same as another card up from your current one so why limit yourself cpu wise if similar in price?

Your talking rubbish now, either that or there was something wrong with your rig, Meatloaf here is getting less Minimum FPS on his 2500K than i am on my Phenom

And was it not you who tried to convince me of the same thing a couple of weeks ago until i beat your Minimum FPS by a long way on my Phenom?

Edit- it was here

yeah mines stock (will be intresting to see comparison cheers)

just done the first mission campaign on bf3 started benchmark from entering train ended it as finished level

all settings max ultra x4 msaa 1080p i5 3570k @ 4.2 6970 stock

2012-11-30 13:19:09 - bf3
Frames: 6959 - Time: 144160ms - Avg: 48.273 - Min: 30 - Max: 72

so my old phenom 955 @ 3.7 on bf3 same mission did that avg 39 fps min 25

And then here

Right, the first mission is Semper Fields.

Starting from when the game starts on the Train roof smashing through the window, end in last carriage with gun in my face.

Gigabyte 7870.

1100 / 1200 (Stock)
Frames: 9491 / Time ms: 144675 / Min 44 / Max 94 / Avg 65.602

1200 / 1500
Frames: 10424 / Time ms 139824 / Min 55 / Max 102 / Avg 74.551

At stock thats 18 FPS on the Avg and 14 FPS on the Minimum more, a huge performance increase. Time perhaps for a GPU upgrade?

oh... and here is the best bit

yeah i knew the cpu wasnt much difference but i was interested in seeing gpu difference.

for bf3 to me not worth it its a piece of so a 7870 is about 10/15 percent faster than a 6970. this will be useful for some though.

Oh really?

 

[~>Dg<~]

erm wtf you on about you have a faster graphics card lol

phenom isnt same in unless its gpu limited

and the benchmark you show is bf3 loooooool

ive played and benched on my phenom 955 at 3.7 on bf3 and i done same from stock i5 3570k and oc . even at stock the i5 is quicker and better minimums on bf3.

only reason u have better fps in bf3 bench is casue you have faster g card and that alone.


go benchmark your super phenom against a i5 3570k as it has mystical powers maybe i think just maybe its the faster cpu ever created

i love how you forgot about the skyrim benchmark i did which clearly showed how bottlenecked you were and i had a lot more fps even with slower g card . also skyrim is one of the best gaming cpu benchmarks you can use to show the power .

 

[wolvers]

Skyrim is a good benchmark for showing how a CPU might perform in out of date game engines that are thankfully becoming few and far between............well I thought so until I started playing Planetside2!

Anyway, on a more Piledriver orientated subject, Handbrake is my new stress test. An OC that looked stable in OCCT and IBT, died on it's arse after about 30 secs in Handbrake at high output settings. It definitely stresses the cores more. Still, after a little bump in vcore, it's currently looking OK after 90mins it's levelled out with 60C on cores and socket temps.

Also, the new rad is ordered so I've got a project for the crimbo holidays. It's going to take a bit of work on the mill to knock up a mounting plate for it though, so hopefully it performs like I hope. I'd better update my build log then too as I haven't done for quite a while.

 

[~>Dg<~]

cool

 

[wolvers]

cool

Isn't it!

Erm. Are we talking about my rad mounting exploits?

** No trading outside MM **

 

[humbug]

Members Market, unfortunately you don't have access to that yet.

 

[wolvers]

 

[Chrisoldinho]

What is the realistic peformance benefit in CPU intensive games (Planetside 2, Skyrim etc) vs the last gen Phenom II's (1045-1100T), stock and overclocked running an 8320/8320 again stock/overclocked, subjective answers expected.

 

[wolvers]

IPC, and therefore gaming performance in the older game engines, from my [email protected] is about the same as my i7-920 was @3.8Ghz.

I certainly wouldn't use PS2 as any kind of a yard stick. Only 2500/2600K and 3570/3770K are getting anywhere near decent fps in that as it stands, and even then it's not really good enough. With the 8350 I get anything from 25fps to 55fps @2560x1440.

Skyrim runs great on my 8350, I have no issues there and being a SP game it's less important. Thankfully, these sorts of games are being fewer all the time.

 

[humbug]

What is the realistic peformance benefit in CPU intensive games (Planetside 2, Skyrim etc) vs the last gen Phenom II's (1045-1100T), stock and overclocked running an 8320/8320 again stock/overclocked, subjective answers expected.

10 FPS for Skyrim and i would think the same difference with other low threaded games.

See here for Skyrim. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-14.html

@ 4.6Ghz you would probably Average 75 to 80 FPS in Skyrim, (if you had a GeForce GTX 680 like the review)

Planet Side2 is a pretty buggy game, i think that will get much better with a few more patches.

 

[~>Dg<~]

sorry but skyrim is not even close in performance amd struggle in comparison fps can be close to double on intel cpu and it is proven not word of mouth on many sites benchmarked.

check

 

[humbug]

sorry but skyrim is not even close in performance amd struggle in comparison fps can be close to double on intel cpu and it is proven not word of mouth on many sites benchmarked.

check

Here we go again with your SpInteling

Word of mouth? lol, are you really that gullible? Now i know why you keep coming up with such garbage.

The benchmark clearly shows FX-8350 67 FPS vs 85 FPS on the 3570K @ 1080P, both those numbers are as playable as eachother.

Its 78 vs 80 at 1600P

 

[~>Dg<~]

there are benchmarks on tomshardware and what i did against yours other day lol

minimums were going below 55 on the pd which means lag where as on the intels it was over this.

the performance will be decent but the guy has just asked about skyrim performance intel is better simple as that .

let you get on with your arguements to the guys considering just look at actual benchmarks around the web

if you game intel simple as . only reason not to go intel is if you have a compatible am3 + mother board and you want to just drop in a pd chip.

only arguement pd peoiple have is for video encoding.

this thread was created to sell pd chips which basically cant do 5 ghz false advertising really as 99.9 percent wont and dont do even close. all its become is people trying to justify buying a slower cpu in everything but encoding for same price as a intel chip.

wont bother you no more truth has been spoken

 

[Martini1991]

Didn't Skyrim get an update that closed the gap quite a vast amount?
Not sure how it can go from 67 on 1080p to 78 on 1600p, but whatever (Agh, that's just humbug reading graphs wrong again)

Skyrim averages don't look too bad on the PD stuff, certainly not double, they used to be though.

 

[humbug]

there are benchmarks on tomshardware and what i did against yours other day lol

minimums were going below 55 on the pd which means lag where as on the intels it was over this.

the performance will be decent but the guy has just asked about skyrim performance intel is better simple as that .

let you get on with your arguements to the guys considering just look at actual benchmarks around the web

if you game intel simple as . only reason not to go intel is if you have a compatible am3 + mother board and you want to just drop in a pd chip.

only arguement pd peoiple have is for video encoding.

this thread was created to sell pd chips which basically cant do 5 ghz false advertising really as 99.9 percent wont and dont do even close. all its become is people trying to justify buying a slower cpu in everything but encoding for same price as a intel chip.

wont bother you no more truth has been spoken

Its £20 - £30 less than a 3570K and faster in most applications, just as fast as the 3570K in most games @ 1080P while slower in old or low threaded badly codded games.

I agree Intel gets higher FPS on the most powerful GPU setup's in some games.
But there is no way minimum 55 FPS creates lag, that's a completely idiotic and desperate thing to say, desperate because you desperately need it to backup your argument so as not to look like a fool, again.
Why do you put up with 30 FPS in BF3 with your rig? i know i wouldn't. That is what may create lag.

You look like a kid with head issues, i'm sure your head is perfectly fine, so perhaps you need to step back from your Intel passion? a little so you don't have to keep getting so defensive.
Intel is the better alrounder when it comes to gaming, yes. But AMD are more than capable enough and cost less, there is no need to try and exaggerate Intel vs AMD.

@ Martini, right, its FX-8350 58 FPS vs 60 on the 3570K

 

[wolvers]

Heavily modded and @1440p.

Skyrim runs great on my 8350

'Now' the truth has been spoken.

And for the record, I have no need to justify buying a PD to anyone thank you very much. I know exactly what it is, and what it can and can't do. Any numpty can look at gaming bar graphs in reviews then go out and buy the one that comes top, regardless of the cost and whether it makes any discernable difference to your experience.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Its £20 - £30 less than a 3570K and faster in most applications, just as fast as the 3570K in most games @ 1080P while slower in old or low threaded badly codded games.

I agree Intel gets higher FPS on the most powerful GPU setup's in some games.
But there is no way minimum 55 FPS creates lag, that's a completely idiotic and desperate thing to say, desperate because you desperately need it to backup your argument so as not to look like a fool, again.
Why do you put up with 30 FPS in BF3 with your rig? i know i wouldn't. That is what may create lag.

You look like a kid with head issues, i'm sure your head is perfectly fine, so perhaps you need to step back from your Intel passion? a little so you don't have to keep getting so defensive.
Intel is the better alrounder when it comes to gaming, yes. But AMD are more than capable enough and cost less, there is no need to try and exaggerate that.

@ Martini, right, its FX-8350 58 FPS vs 60 on the 3570K

so what about 60 fps being needed or maybe you have vsync or 60 fps capped ? a lot do this in many games if you drop below 60 fps you get lag tearing and other issues sometimes

you highlighted yourself skyrim drops below 60 fps on pd and i know it does.

on the intel it doesnt in same price range. the guy who i answered the question to asked about skyrim performance. so what i put is true intel has the better performance in games. doesnt matter what you say the pd is slower.

also i did the bf3 benchmark at ultra to see what the fps difference was if any in cpu which there isnt cause its gpu limited then you cried about higher fps with a better gpu

also i dont play at ultra on bf3 so why would 30 fps bother me if i dont use those settings lol . anyone with any idea of mp and bf3 doesnt play on highest settings . you go for 60 fps minimum and what is best ingame not whack everything on full. thats a hinderance.

ill leave you to do more false hoods.

the intel is faster at similar price range thats why the 8350 has dropped in price to sell at what it can compete with which is the cpu below the intel 3570k

if it was faster it would be dearer than the i3570k its that simple.

i have no bias to any sides amd or intel

last 5 rigs i have had have been amd and i still have two amd phenom rigs

so please dont make intel fanboy i dont give too hoots who or what other than performance.

all this dribble when you already know the intel is faster lol .