Seemingly inexplicable poor FPS in games

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

You're talking to the wrong person about getting the highest X/P score as that's what i enjoy and that's what i buy hardware for - rarley play games.

As for the forum being bias towards Intel....yes and no, it's more to do with Intel being far far superior in the one thing that matters for gaming - IPC. When games only utilise 1-4 cores (a lot of games....) Intel will come out top, only in games where they can take advantage of all the others AMD provide do they break even and even then the 4c4t Intel will trump the best AMD has, no to mention the 6c6t beasts.

Don't get me wrong, overclocking can get addicitive. Squeezing every last bit of performance out of something is fun and rewarding however, for people to automatically default to the CPU sucks answer just because it's an AMD is ******** especially when I was very clear in that yesterday all was well and today not so well.

So, a 4 core CPU is really all that is needed in life at the moment? I use a lot of development programs and don't often see all 8 cores being used at once, they do all get used but it's usually 1-4 at a time. if that's correct?

At this moment in time, I can run all my games at max settings and see no problems. Bar the anti-aliasing on Train Simulator but as mentioned, even the most powerful Intel rig can't take the max setting. Trainz is just broken. Get good frame rates till the scene needs drawing. And this is the problem everyone has.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Don't get me wrong, overclocking can get addicitive. Squeezing every last bit of performance out of something is fun and rewarding however, for people to automatically default to the CPU sucks answer just because it's an AMD is ******** especially when I was very clear in that yesterday all was well and today not so well.

So, a 4 core CPU is really all that is needed in life at the moment? I use a lot of development programs and don't often see all 8 cores being used at once, they do all get used but it's usually 1-4 at a time. if that's correct?

At this moment in time, I can run all my games at max settings and see no problems. Bar the anti-aliasing on Train Simulator but as mentioned, even the most powerful Intel rig can't take the max setting. Trainz is just broken. Get good frame rates till the scene needs drawing. And this is the problem everyone has.

http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/274456-would-i-gain-fps-by-upgrading-to-a-new-cpu/page__st__20#top

Check out the last post on this page to see some WOT cpu benches. Does show that amd chips lack in this game. A fx-8350@5ghz can't match a low end intel i3/i5 running at 3.7ghz which is pretty low on the cpu clock for ivy bridge. Still it does show that your cpu is up to running the game as you have said.

 

[teppic]

There are lots of games where the CPU makes next to no difference (like most shooters), and when it does, in most with a good GPU you're looking at frame rates always above 60 anyway.

This recent comparison shows that performance is pretty good for the recent FX series.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/G/395944/original/Combined-Average-Gaming-Performance.png

 

[TheRealDeal]

There are lots of games where the CPU makes next to no difference (like most shooters), and when it does, in most with a good GPU you're looking at frame rates always above 60 anyway.

This recent comparison shows that performance is pretty good for the recent FX series.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/I/G/395944/original/Combined-Average-Gaming-Performance.png

More recent games are starting to use more cores/threads which won't hurt the amd cpu's half as bad. On the other hand world of tank's fully utilises 1 core and some of the second. In games like this amd are at a disadvantage.

 

[teppic]

Yeah, single and very lightly threaded games are the exception, but they're relatively rare. People often bring up WoW and Starcraft 2 but don't mention all the massively popular games where performance is absolutely ok.

Tomshardware's article (from 2 days ago) finishes up with

"The shining star in today’s comparison is AMD’s FX-6350, which delivers solid performance in games, while besting Intel's Core i5 in a number of our other benchmark workloads. The cheaper FX-6300 is an even more attractive bargain, so long as you're willing to overclock it."

That's far from the 'Intel destroys AMD in gaming, and AMD offers zero competition' that people on here constantly say.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

Interesting comparison there for the benches in WoT. I'm well up there with average of 50FPS. It must be the mod that's known to cause lag, causing more then normal, although it has been better today, as stated.

The fact my monitors only go to 60hz means I'm happy. I don't notice much over 25FPS to be fair. It's only when it gets down to 15 or hangs for a second is it noticeable. I like my 8150, it works and I'm not about to go and spend over £1,000 on an Intel setup when I'm not going to see any difference. Most games I play on the Xbox (One) anyway. It's only sims and RTS that I play on PC.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Yeah, single and very lightly threaded games are the exception, but they're relatively rare. People often bring up WoW and Starcraft 2 but don't mention all the massively popular games where performance is absolutely ok.

Tomshardware's article (from 2 days ago) finishes up with

"The shining star in today’s comparison is AMD’s FX-6350, which delivers solid performance in games, while besting Intel's Core i5 in a number of our other benchmark workloads. The cheaper FX-6300 is an even more attractive bargain, so long as you're willing to overclock it."

That's far from the 'Intel destroys AMD in gaming, and AMD offers zero competition' that people on here constantly say.

Please teppic don't derail this into yet another Intel vs AMD and "newer games will uses more cores blah blah blah...", when this topic is about (older) games that use 4 cores or less, not a discussion for PC gaming in general. Seriously your above post is totally irrelevant to this topic.

 

[teppic]

Please teppic don't derail this into yet another Intel vs AMD and "newer games will uses more cores blah blah blah...", when this topic is about (older) games that use 4 cores or less. Seriously your above post is totally irrelevant to this topic.

It's as relevant as posts saying his CPU is crap.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

Please teppic don't derail this into yet another Intel vs AMD and "newer games will uses more cores blah blah blah...", when this topic is about (older) games that use 4 cores or less, not a discussion for PC gaming in general. Seriously your above post is totally irrelevant to this topic.

I found his post very relevant and useful. It's not even about older games or newer games, it's about if my settings are wrong or the code is ****e. WoT isn't an old game. And TS is less then 12 months old.

Don't most if not, all games use a max of 4 cores which is why the AMD 8 core isn't good for gaming? Half of it's power is left on the table?

 

[Marine-RX179]

It's as relevant as posts saying his CPU is crap.

You honestly think your talk of "future games uses more cores" is as relevant as "Bulldozer's extremely weak single-threaded performance making it one of the worst CPU for light-threaded games" relating to (older) games that use low number of cores?

Sorry there's some seriously flaw in your logic.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

It's as relevant as posts saying his CPU is crap.

Exactly...CPU isn't crap, it's just not as good for gaming as an Intel but still plays all my games at max so yeah...I'll stick with it thanks.

 

[teppic]

You honestly think your talk of "future games uses more cores" is as relevant as "Bulldozer's extremely weak single-threaded performance making it one of the worst CPU for light-threaded games" relating to (older) games that use low number of cores?

Sorry there's some seriously flaw in your logic.

Oh, please. People dismiss the OP's comments, insist it's his CPU, tell him to get some 'humility' and you take it upon yourself to call my post irrelevant? He's just said he found it useful. Get a grip.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

You honestly think your talk of "future games uses more cores" is as relevant as "Bulldozer's extremely weak single-threaded performance making it one of the worst CPU for light-threaded games" relating to (older) games that use low number of cores?

Sorry there's some seriously flaw in your logic.

Talking about my CPU is COMPLETELY irrelevant as it isn't the problem.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Don't most if not, all games use a max of 4 cores which is why the AMD 8 core isn't good for gaming? Half of it's power is left on the table?

This is exactly it. This is why I said regardless of a game use 1 core or up to 4 cores, an overclocked i5 will get far less performance hit, because it can practically deliver twice the processing power over the same number of cores.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

This is exactly it. This is why I said regardless of a game use 1 core or up to 4 cores, an overclocked i5 will get far less performance hit, because it can practically deliver twice the processing power over the same number of cores.

Ok, so that's fine. Basically, when running a game that uses 4 cores and not 8, I'm using a 2400mhz 4 core CPU. I can see this causing problems but, I'm not experiencing them. The CPU ran fine yesterday and I had no problems. I've got WoT running as well as it can with the mods, Trainz we know is broken and Train Sim is running pretty good with max anti-aliasing and even better with it turned down to a mid-range setting. The difference in quality even with it off is very small. Some blurring on rails, mid-range setting, it's fine.

So, my best bet and cheapest solution, at the end of all this would be to go and buy the fastest 4 core AM3+ CPU I can find. I'm not getting Intel because I've just spent £1,500 on my system and I'm not spending another £1,500 on it this year. Maybe in January I'll build something with all the new processors that are coming out and a Hawaii graphics card as I've never used AMD GPU.

 

[teppic]

So, my best bet and cheapest solution, at the end of all this would be to go and buy the fastest 4 core AM3+ CPU I can find. I'm not getting Intel because I've just spent £1,500 on my system and I'm not spending another £1,500 on it this year. Maybe in January I'll build something with all the new processors that are coming out and a Hawaii graphics card as I've never used AMD GPU.

You can get an FX-6300 for about £90 and overclock that to around 4.7GHz - it'll be faster than your 8150. Some games use more than 4 cores, but not really RTS games at the moment. I wouldn't go for the 4350 as it's basically the same price for a weaker CPU. Maybe wait until the 6300 is on offer, I guess it could come down to £80.

You mentioned Sim City, this would gain a benefit (it makes some use of the PD cores) - e.g. this benchmark, http://i.imgur.com/mXHwFNf.png (this is maxed out, I can't see any for lower settings).

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

What about a 4350? That starts at 4.2Ghz? Cheap as well at £90.

Answer me this people...I develop websites so, I have a lot of monitors and a lot of programs open at once doing a lot of things.

Dreamweaver sucks juice from the CPU, as does all the FTP clients and other things!

Going to simplify this beyond simple.

If I have two programs open, do program A run on core 1 and program B run on core 2? Does the OS run on one or two cores and then the other 6 runs programs?

OR

Work is shared between the 8 cores, so 50% of Program A runs on core 1 and 50% on core 2....think you get the idea.


Or am I way off track?

I only ask because...if I was to get a quad core for gaming, which I'm doing more and more of now I have a decent GPU, am I going to notice a reduction in performance loading programs, saving files, transferring files etc compared to my current octo core?

If so, then I have another Crosshair 5 board that I could build up as my work system using my old GPU or a 660TI, or two, as long as I have enough ports for a minimum of 2 monitors. Get some cheaper RAM and air cool my work system. I can't stand the noise, needs to be quiet when you're sat next to it 17 hours a day without games drowning out the noise.

Other option is to spend £4,000 roughly on a new Intel system, with Hawaii and watercooling in the new year, specifically for gaming.

Idealling, the quad or hex core won't impact my day to day work and I can get that and be a happy chappy with more gaming power.

I think this is the point where I say...discuss?

 

[Marine-RX179]

Ignore.

 

[Marine-RX179]

Ok, so that's fine. Basically, when running a game that uses 4 cores and not 8, I'm using a 2400mhz 4 core CPU. I can see this causing problems but, I'm not experiencing them. The CPU ran fine yesterday and I had no problems. I've got WoT running as well as it can with the mods, Trainz we know is broken and Train Sim is running pretty good with max anti-aliasing and even better with it turned down to a mid-range setting. The difference in quality even with it off is very small. Some blurring on rails, mid-range setting, it's fine.

So, my best bet and cheapest solution, at the end of all this would be to go and buy the fastest 4 core AM3+ CPU I can find. I'm not getting Intel because I've just spent £1,500 on my system and I'm not spending another £1,500 on it this year. Maybe in January I'll build something with all the new processors that are coming out and a Hawaii graphics card as I've never used AMD GPU.

The problem is the current fastest AMD CPU is that the Pilediver is only 10-15% on average faster than your Bulldozer clock vs clock, so even if you upgraded, you won't get much meaningful gain (but if you can find a 6300/8320 for cheap enough, then sure why not?). Piledriver Quad-core is quite poor value comparing to the Hex-Core, as it is only £5-£10 cheaper, but with two less cores. If you are going to have other stuffs running in the background while you game, I think you should go for a FX8320 so you got more cores at your disposal (but make sure you overclock it).

IMO if you are going do most of your games on your console, and CPU demanding PC exclusive games such as sims, strategy games on PC, then you really would be much better off with Intel (unless AMD's next gen CPU Steamroller can gives us the same high number of cores, but delivering at least 80-90% of the per core performance of the Intel's).

teppic's argument always has been along the line of "future games will be much better at using more cores due to AMD bagged both console", which I actually never disagreed on. However that logic only apply for "multi-platform" games, where as PC exclusive, the chances are the developer that make sim, strategy and mmo games will still be using less than 4 cores, due it is much easier to use (older) existing game engines, than to go through the trouble of spending the time, effort and resources to develop a new engine that would use up to 8 cores.

Another thing that I thought you might want to know is that while WOT is a relatively recent game, the game engine "BigWorld" it uses is fairly dated (it was apparently state of the art back in the days though- like 6-7 years ago). It's probably STILL is the most appropriate existing engine for WOT, but it is certainly far from perfect.

 

[Th3M8dH8tt3r]

Ok cool but is windows distributing program's workload across cores or is it program dependent? My work is more important then gsmes so if dropping cores is going to cause my work to slow down, not good.

Would the 4 core 4.2ghz fx overclock higher then the 6 core and this provide more gaming performance?

I think the console thing isn't entirely accurate as I'm sure Sony and Microsoft are manufacturing the hardware themselves under license so AMD has little direct involvement. Might be wrong or it is irrelevant.

When's Steamroller due out?