• 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.

Who here has Metro 2033 and an FX-83## or FX-81##

Yes
Phenoms, BD and PD have dire x87 performance.
It is obvious from the testing that AMD chips can only manage about 30FPS when doing Physx with very low minimums,

If you want to use CPU Physx go Intel.
 
I think humbug does

Nothing wrong with Physx, but its no big deal to me, its a few extra dust particles, a few extra sparks, if i can run it i will, if not i wont miss it.

I used it to compare FX-83## CPU performance to mine, but since AMD don't support x87 the comparison is out of the window.

Besides, it does not run well on Intel either, so there is no point in one or the other.
 
Last edited:
Actually it runs quite well on the Intel chips.
I had no trouble averaging in the 70's on the test with a 3820

CPU Physics
i73820-metro-cpu-physx.png
 
Last edited:
Actually it runs quite well on the Intel chips.
I had no trouble averaging in the 70's on the test with a 3820

CPU Physics
i73820-metro-cpu-physx.png

I can see from that chart that your FPS dropped to similar levels and in the same place as i have, the reason you have much higher Avg FPS is because your running two GTX 680's vs my one 7870. (hence 400 FPS MAX)

Its not performing any better than my CPU in this, put them side to side and look. :)

Let me show you something http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-physx-hack-amd-radeon,review-32051-5.html

fps_metro2033.png


Performing these benchmarks with a powerful main graphics card and a dedicated PhysX card was a deliberate choice, given that a single Nvidia card normally suffers from some performance penalties with GPU-based PhysX enabled. Things would get quite bad in this already-GPU-constrained game. In this case, the difference between CPU-based PhysX on a fast six-core processor with well-implemented multi-threading and a single GPU is almost zero.

Phenom II x6 1090T @ 4Ghz; CPU Physx = 32 FPS

GPU Physx 39 FPS

That X6 1090T is running @ 4Ghz and probably stock memory / CPU-NB, by comparison i'm running 1700Mhz memory, 3000Mhz CPU-NB and 4.1Ghz, my 1090T runs circles around that one at my clocks.

In this game the difference between the Nvidia GPU and the Phenom II 6 core for Physx is not huge, there is literally just a few FPS in it.

Metro 2033 it very GPU, because of that switching between GPU and CPU Physx makes little difference when using a decent CPU.

Either way its playable, acceptably smooth, on my CPU and i have no doubt on yours to.
 
Last edited:
Stop trying to draw a conclusion that suits you.

Simple fact.
I used 2 GPU's, ran on AMD average frame rate low 30's
Same 2 GPU's ran on Intel average frame rate low 70'

You have a bottleneck in your GPU that is masking the weakness in your CPU.
I simply removed the bottleneck and allowed the CPU to be tested.

Which after all was your intention.
 
Stop trying to draw a conclusion that suits you.

Simple fact.
I used 2 GPU's, ran on AMD average frame rate low 30's
Same 2 GPU's ran on Intel average frame rate low 70'

You have a bottleneck in your GPU that is masking the weakness in your CPU.
I simply removed the bottleneck and allowed the CPU to be tested.

Which after all was your intention.

No, your running two GTX 680's vs my one 7870 and tried to claim your avg FPS were so much higher because of the Intel CPU. Its utter garbage.

I just proved it isn't with your own data, the proof is in the graphs, anyone with half a mature brain and no agenda can see that as plain as day. your performance increase is purely down to your GTX 680 SLI, its taken the Avg FPS from 3 time more GPU grunt from when when your CPU is not bottle-necking those GPU's at the end of the bench.

Other the the high end FPS your PFS are the same as mine (in the Graph) you run your bench again only this time with the equivalent of a 7870 and the results will look just like mine.

Get off your high horse kid :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
No, your running two GTX 680's vs my one 7870 and tried to claim your avg FPS were so much higher because it was on an Intel CPU. Its utter garbage.

I just proved it isn't, the proof is in the graphs, anyone with half a mature brain and no agenda can see that as plain as day. your performance increase is purley down to your GTX 680 SLI, its taken the Avg FPS from 3 time more GPU grunt when your CPU is not bottle-necking those GPU's

Other the the high end FPS your PFS are the same as mine (in the Graph)

Get off your high horse kid :rolleyes:

Erm.... Humbug..... His post makes it sound like he's used his FX8320 with the 680's too for this.

You know, since he has an FX8320 and says ;

I used 2 GPU's, ran on AMD average frame rate low 30's
Same 2 GPU's ran on Intel average frame rate low 70'
 
I don't really know or care, has nothing to do with what I posted.
But you went off on the guy for absolutely no reason whatsoever, it's not his fault you're unable to read he used his 680 SLI on both his AMD set up and Intel set up.
 
How's a 680 SLI and higher clocked 3820 slower than a 2500k and 680? (Your first link).

EDIT : Also, I think you might need to see a doctor, he even posted a result with his GTX680's and FX8320 in this thread.
 
Last edited:
How's a 680 SLI and higher clocked 3820 slower than a 2500k and 680? (Your first link).

3770K @ 4.8Ghz 7970 = 40 FPS Avg.

performance difference between 3820 and 3770K http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/523?vs=551

The 3770K @ 4.8Ghz is 15 FPS faster than me.

He is running a slower CPU + GTX 680 SLI and getting 70 FPS.

If that 3770K @ 4.8Ghz was also running GTX 680 SLI what do you think his Avg FPS would be?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom