• 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.

Old but interesting article, CPU / GPU comparisons @4K Gaming

We discussed this one a bit over in the CPU subforum. The 4 module Piledrivers seem to be a great choice for 4K, especially as they're considerably cheaper than any comparable Intel option which means more money to spend on GPU power. Thanks for resharing.
 
Yeah. With the new push at 4k, the cpu matters even less, until we're at a point in time that gpus are like 5 times faster, that'll probably still be the case.
 
Martini1991 said:
Yeah. With the new push at 4k, the cpu matters even less, until we're at a point in time that gpus are like 5 times faster, that'll probably still be the case.
Click to expand...

The CPU might not matter, but at the moment the PCI-E lanes available does.

Hence why people with '4k' quadfire systems (or 4x 980's) tend to have 5930k or 5960x CPU's.
 
Exactly what I said in another thread the other day.. When it comes to gaming an AMD CPU vs Intel they not much in it that you would notice the extra..

They is points though and that's MultiGPU support on Intel is much better for performance..
 
shankly1985 said:
Exactly what I said in another thread the other day.. When it comes to gaming an AMD CPU vs Intel they not much in it that you would notice the extra..

They is points though and that's MultiGPU support on Intel is much better for performance..
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true as a blanket statement, it's not just frame rates that are changed. I find the stance funny (Although predictable) given how you tout Mantle doing X and Y (Which it does) but then don't apply the same logic to the CPU.

Multi-GPU at 4K, I really can't imagine there being a drastic amount of difference either, so you're wrong on that blanket statement as well, incidentally, Vincent raises a valid point.

To me, people who go on about Mantle and the pros of it in terms of performance (Which I agree with) but then back peddle when it comes to the CPU (In terms of downplaying getting a higher performing CPU) are hypocrites.

VincentHanna said:
The CPU might not matter, but at the moment the PCI-E lanes available does.

Hence why people with '4k' quadfire systems (or 4x 980's) tend to have 5930k or 5960x CPU's.
Click to expand...

True that, it could incidentally give AMD the edge over a mainstream socket 1XXX platform for 4K in Multi-GPU at this *present* moment in time.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Actually, that's not true as a blanket statement, it's not just frame rates that are changed. I find the stance funny (Although predictable) given how you tout Mantle doing X and Y (Which it does) but then don't apply the same logic to the CPU.

Multi-GPU at 4K, I really can't imagine there being a drastic amount of difference either, so you're wrong on that blanket statement as well.
Click to expand...

Mate "Mate"

I have used an AMD system in my little bro PC playing BF4 on a single 290 with an OC 8350 I couldn't notice the difference at all..
Zero!

They very little in it other than looking at bench results showing that Intel gained 10fps more!

AMD CPU on a single GPU is perfectly fine!
 
shankly1985 said:
Mate "Mate"

I have used an AMD system in my little bro PC playing BF4 on a single 290 with an OC 8350 I couldn't notice the difference at all..
Zero!

They very little in it other than looking at bench results showing that Intel gained 10fps more!

AMD CPU on a single GPU is perfectly fine!
Click to expand...

Then Mantle and DirectX 11 are exactly the same then.

Also, BF4's the exception rather than the rule, I agree on BF4, I'd have no problem with a single GPU and an FX83.

Pray tell though, was your brother running Mantle? If so, the comparison is even less relevant.
 
Martini1991 said:
Good talk Shanks, you're always so objective and unbiased.
Click to expand...

One of the concerns that’s been raised by readers in the past is that we hadn’t given AMD’s FX platform a fair shake in gaming tests. With the FX-9590 shipping, it seemed a good time to revisit that question. Now that we’ve put two systems through their paces in single and dual-GPU configurations, we’ve got a much better feel for how AMD and Intel compare at the highest end. Across all the titles we tested, the FX-9590 is on average 5% slower than the Ivy Bridge-E 4960X in terms of fps when using the HD 7990, and 4% slower when using the R9 290X.
The gap in frame latency times is a little larger. If we include Battlefield 3 — the one title where the FX-9590 was a full 24% slower than the Ivy Bridge system — then the average frame time for the FX-9590 is 7% slower than Ivy Bridge when using the HD 7990 and 8% slower when running the R9 290X. If we remove BF3 from the calculation (the difference between a 16ms and 20ms frame time being almost invisible), than the gap falls to just 3%. In this case, that more accurately reflects the subjective experience of using the two platforms. The 4960X and FX-9590 “feel” more similar when playing on a single GPU than when using the dual-GPU card.
It’s possible that this is due to a low-level issue with AMD’s frame pacing software, which remains in beta. It’s possible that it’s a fundamental attribute of the Piledriver core which, despite running at 5GHz, still has certain intrinsic penalties that don’t vanish just because the CPU is clocked at a higher frequency. Either way, it’s fair to say that the Ivy Bridge platform is a slightly better fit for the R9 290X, and picks up a bit more performance from the card.
"But does it compete, in both configurations? Absolutely yes. Crysis 3 is the only game where playing on an AMD system felt demonstrably different from playing on the Intel rig. Maingear’s configuration and cooler choices kept the AMD rig running quietly, even under heavy load, and the system had no problems punching out high frame rates. The price difference between a Maingear 4960X-equipped system and the AMD Shift sits at ~$1500 with all other components identical. While you obviously pay a huge premium for a top-end system from a boutique manufacturer like Maingear, the FX-9590 is also showing up for just $400, while the 4960X is still a $1000 chip."
Critics will point out that the FX-9590 still has a much higher TDP than the Ivy Bridge-E and that it isn’t as fast in non-gaming workloads. Both of these are true. But if you’ve been a hardcore AMD gaming fan for years, and are hungry for a chip that can offer challenge, the FX-9590 can provide it. It’s good to see AMD making moves like this, even if most eyes are turned towards Kaveri and the next-generation APU core that’s still supposedly on track to debut at the tail end of the year with availability in 2014.

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...mate-gaming-showdown-5ghz-fx-9590-vs-i7-4960x

What I said Single GPU they very little in it!

Ayahuasca said:
Is this the new stunning :cool: ?
Click to expand...

Stunning Bah, Bah,Bah :cool:
 
Interesting article, more pci lanes that make little to no difference for 4k gaming, with two platforms that do not currently offer anything over Z97/Z87 for gaming rigs.

Current reviews and articles had shown two 290 to scale better and offer higher minimum frame rates than two 780's, and regardless of choice, three to four GPU's from 290/970 upward as what you want for 4k gaming, making X99 the more sensible choice if you plan on 4 GPU's but three 8x slots as perfectly viable. And still three 290's as the card of choice if you have the PSU and can afford the electric bill, because they are the best value.

Sadly the power requirements are usually 1200w+ in these articles, which just shows how immature 4k actually is at this moment.

I do hope AMD's 300 series GPU's have no issues like the current Nvidia, but will wait and see how they perform before deciding on my choices. But currently, as much as I am a fan, the power consumption puts me right off in this day and age.

With Intels new CPU and chipsets around the corner, it won't be any AMD CPU for 4k gaming regardless of how some article can paint a rosy picture, as it still cannot perform well enough elsewhere to justify the cost saving.
 
Problem with review sites is the limited amount of games.

Dying Light for example shows an i3 going up against one of the big 8 core AMD chips.
But I can't make a blanket statement out and say the i3's just the same and there's little difference, because it's not true. I'd never put an i3 with an R9 290X, I'd have less reservations doing the same with an FX83/FX95, but I wouldn't do it, I'd just invest more money into a superior Intel set up.

I guess Mantle's just the same as DirectX 11 then too in terms of how it feels.

Also, FX95 and Ivy-E is a poor comparison, if you're looking at the former you'd never consider the latter, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Problem with review sites is the limited amount of games.

Dying Light for example shows an i3 going up against one of the big 8 core AMD chips.

But I can't make a blanket statement out and say the i3's just the same.

I guess Mantle's just the same as DirectX 11 then too in terms of how it feels.

Also, FX95 and Ivy-E is a poor comparison, if you're looking at the former you'd never consider the latter, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Bah,Bah,Bah<bah = Stunning :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom