- Status
Onus
Titan
- Jan 27, 2006
- 37,035
- 12
- 89,965
So if you maybe turn down a setting, a mere HD6670 can play this game reasonably well even at 1920x1080. Even though it is far from the most demanding title out there, this is excellent ammunition for my arguments for frugality; it doesn't take $500+ of GPU(s) to build a "serious" gaming PC.
-Fran-
Glorious
- May 3, 2007
- 9,543
- 3,094
- 47,640
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Frankly, that's a BS "review". No configuration information whatsoever, just "up to x% increase over quad core". Terrible.[/citation]
You can always prove that article wrong, you know... Add a 6+ core (giving HT the benefit of "logic core" count) from now on and you'll be set. Just sayin'...
Besides, since dual cores are not cutting it anymore, you should actually start looking at 4+ for benchies.
Cheers!
You can always prove that article wrong, you know... Add a 6+ core (giving HT the benefit of "logic core" count) from now on and you'll be set. Just sayin'...
Besides, since dual cores are not cutting it anymore, you should actually start looking at 4+ for benchies.
Cheers!
Cleeve, Why do I have the feeling that now a day games would do more than just good on a triple core machine?
On the CPU Performance page, am I the only one to notice that the min FPS changed slightly from a triple core configuration to a quad core configuration? Why is it that the min FPS changed only slightly and the AVG. FPS changed significantly, is the GPU in this case the bottleneck of the whole rig?
Would results be any different if run on the top high NVIDIA card? Would they show a clear difference in performance between a triple core and a quad core cpu?
P.S. If an AMD Phenom II X6 clocked at same frequency as a Phenom II X4 and would produce almost identical results, why not use the six core Phenom instead of the four core Phenom in that case, it shouldn't be a big difference, right? :?
On the CPU Performance page, am I the only one to notice that the min FPS changed slightly from a triple core configuration to a quad core configuration? Why is it that the min FPS changed only slightly and the AVG. FPS changed significantly, is the GPU in this case the bottleneck of the whole rig?
Would results be any different if run on the top high NVIDIA card? Would they show a clear difference in performance between a triple core and a quad core cpu?
P.S. If an AMD Phenom II X6 clocked at same frequency as a Phenom II X4 and would produce almost identical results, why not use the six core Phenom instead of the four core Phenom in that case, it shouldn't be a big difference, right? :?
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]vider[/nom]Cleeve, Why do I have the feeling that now a day games would do more than just good on a triple core machine? On the CPU Performance page, am I the only one to notice that the min FPS changed slightly from a triple core configuration to a quad core configuration?[/citation]
That's usually the case, although there are quite a few games that make use of quad cores.
[citation][nom]vider[/nom]P.S. If an AMD Phenom II X6 clocked at same frequency as a Phenom II X4 and would produce almost identical results, why not use the six core Phenom instead of the four core Phenom in that case, it shouldn't be a big difference, right? :?[/citation]
Because I'd rather test what's out there. Quads vastly outnumber hexa-core CPUs.
That's usually the case, although there are quite a few games that make use of quad cores.
[citation][nom]vider[/nom]P.S. If an AMD Phenom II X6 clocked at same frequency as a Phenom II X4 and would produce almost identical results, why not use the six core Phenom instead of the four core Phenom in that case, it shouldn't be a big difference, right? :?[/citation]
Because I'd rather test what's out there. Quads vastly outnumber hexa-core CPUs.
Stardude82
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2006
- 560
- 5
- 19,015
[citation][nom]enterco[/nom]I still try to understand why do you use DDR3-2000 memory with DDR3-1333 SPD timings.[/citation]
CL9 timings for DDR3-2000 sounds pretty good to me? On the P67, is your transfer speed capped at 1333 MT/s. Going above 1333MHz just gains you reduced latency.
CL9 timings for DDR3-2000 sounds pretty good to me? On the P67, is your transfer speed capped at 1333 MT/s. Going above 1333MHz just gains you reduced latency.
I'm guessing the main reason that it barley changes from tripe to quad core is that the game was recoded to work on consoles, which only have triple core CPU's. Didn't something like this happen with GTA 4 too? It ran terrible on dual cores, but go to triple or quad core and it ran great, though the difference between 3 and 4 was minimal.
Did Toms really just say this:
"When it comes to processing power, a 2.0 GHz triple-core or 2.5 GHz dual-core chip should be the realistic minimum...."
Triple-core CPUs are so far and few between, they are like a legacy device. I know AMD made a couple, not sure about Intel. But, this statement alone makes me rethink Toms, but that has been going on for a little while now 😉
"When it comes to processing power, a 2.0 GHz triple-core or 2.5 GHz dual-core chip should be the realistic minimum...."
Triple-core CPUs are so far and few between, they are like a legacy device. I know AMD made a couple, not sure about Intel. But, this statement alone makes me rethink Toms, but that has been going on for a little while now 😉
eklipz330
Distinguished
- Jul 7, 2008
- 3,034
- 19
- 20,795
it's arite cleeve, i know the 6 core doesn't offer much of an improvement over the 4 core phenoms. some games, it actually does worse. some people just have buyer's remorse, you know? they got suckered in to wasting their money for 2 extra cores for gaming.
dalauder
Splendid
- Aug 30, 2010
- 4,445
- 236
- 23,690
I would like to see a proper Duke Nukem game made in a 2 to 3 year cycle. DNFE was successful enough to warrant a sequel. Now all they need to do is get out there and set a new bar for an interactive world that's all about the side quests--the goal of course should be to make it significantly more detail oriented, fun, and free than the recent GTA games (which took the cue from the original Duke Nukem games pretty well).
Combat should focus on using any part of the environment (including escape/entry routes through windows and walls) with a significant shortage on real ammo--take Dead Rising 2 up a notch. Every object should have two properties, each on flamability and combustability--so you can throw, burn, & or blow up any object. Have shootouts with aliens in warehouses where every lawnmower, ceiling fan, or pick axe can be used to make the stacks of shelves topple. And that's just combat.
No more Egometer--just simplify it back to food giving health so that the food you eat is more interesting and let your stomach capacity increase as the game goes on. Add special effects (like GTA PCP effects) when you consume alcohol or other drugs so that you can take more hits or run faster. Then your food you eat actually matters.
But everything--every chair, stack of papers, toilet, vending machine, can of paint, or thorny bush needs to do something. It's a lot of work, but far from impossible. And that's what another Duke game's gonna have to bring to the table because I doubt it'll be a top selling game again with a repeat of this game.
That and they've got to copy HL2's saw blades for cutting enemies in half.
Combat should focus on using any part of the environment (including escape/entry routes through windows and walls) with a significant shortage on real ammo--take Dead Rising 2 up a notch. Every object should have two properties, each on flamability and combustability--so you can throw, burn, & or blow up any object. Have shootouts with aliens in warehouses where every lawnmower, ceiling fan, or pick axe can be used to make the stacks of shelves topple. And that's just combat.
No more Egometer--just simplify it back to food giving health so that the food you eat is more interesting and let your stomach capacity increase as the game goes on. Add special effects (like GTA PCP effects) when you consume alcohol or other drugs so that you can take more hits or run faster. Then your food you eat actually matters.
But everything--every chair, stack of papers, toilet, vending machine, can of paint, or thorny bush needs to do something. It's a lot of work, but far from impossible. And that's what another Duke game's gonna have to bring to the table because I doubt it'll be a top selling game again with a repeat of this game.
That and they've got to copy HL2's saw blades for cutting enemies in half.
geekapproved
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2010
- 8,766
- 0
- 31,460
Since this game obviously takes advantage of lots of cores, I'd like to see a 3.5ghz X6 scores, I bet they would be very high.
Stardude82
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2006
- 560
- 5
- 19,015
It turns out Unreal Tournament 3 on a 1100T runs marginally better than a QX9770...
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=15
Yawn, 5-10% improvement over the quad.
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=15
Yawn, 5-10% improvement over the quad.
youssef 2010
Distinguished
- Jan 1, 2009
- 1,263
- 0
- 19,360
FXAA is like morphological AA and yet, Nvidia was taking the mickey out of AMD for developing the technology. I would advise Nvidia to not make fun of AMD's technology to avoid embarrassing itself.
They may have PhysX and CUDA and all that other stuff. But I have more respect for AMD than I will ever have for Nvidia. Because it was just like AMD making fun of Intel because of the Core2Quad being two Core2Duo processors in a single package and then it couldn't match the performance of that CPU.
They may have PhysX and CUDA and all that other stuff. But I have more respect for AMD than I will ever have for Nvidia. Because it was just like AMD making fun of Intel because of the Core2Quad being two Core2Duo processors in a single package and then it couldn't match the performance of that CPU.
dalauder
Splendid
- Aug 30, 2010
- 4,445
- 236
- 23,690
[citation][nom]stardude82[/nom]It turns out Unreal Tournament 3 runs worse on hex cores than on quads:http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo/ [...] itstart=15Fanboys stop whining.[/citation]Ummm...you're comparing the 970BE to the 1075T. You should be comparing it to the 1090T, which is on that same benchmark and beats it. But of course a hexacore is better when running 32 bots--it's like that benchmark is specifically chosen to show benefits of more cores.
If you look up normal benchmarks from modern software, most will show the 1090T more or less matching the 970BE, except when core count matters and it wins out.
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]Since this game obviously takes advantage of lots of cores, I'd like to see a 3.5ghz X6 scores, I bet they would be very high.[/citation]Duke Nukem Forever utilizes 3 cores, like many games nowadays. I'm actually surprised to see that it's modern in that respect. You can see from the benchies that scaling beyond a 3rd core is minimal, so a hexacore would run this VERY similarly to a similarly clocked quad core (of the same architecture).
If you look up normal benchmarks from modern software, most will show the 1090T more or less matching the 970BE, except when core count matters and it wins out.
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]Since this game obviously takes advantage of lots of cores, I'd like to see a 3.5ghz X6 scores, I bet they would be very high.[/citation]Duke Nukem Forever utilizes 3 cores, like many games nowadays. I'm actually surprised to see that it's modern in that respect. You can see from the benchies that scaling beyond a 3rd core is minimal, so a hexacore would run this VERY similarly to a similarly clocked quad core (of the same architecture).
dalauder
Splendid
- Aug 30, 2010
- 4,445
- 236
- 23,690
[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]Since this game obviously takes advantage of lots of cores, I'd like to see a 3.5ghz X6 scores, I bet they would be very high.[/citation]Correction to my comment earlier: The Phenom II x6's may well scale better than the x4's. The benchmarks weren't conclusive. It wouldn't match an i5-2500K, but that's hardly the point.
Stardude82
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2006
- 560
- 5
- 19,015
[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]But of course a hexacore is better when running 32 bots--it's like that benchmark is specifically chosen to show benefits of more cores.[/citation]
That's a good point... what about the bots?
That's a good point... what about the bots?
iam2thecrowe
Glorious
- Jul 4, 2010
- 10,590
- 21
- 44,965
where is the 6 core cpu scaling i wanted? please do a new write up on recent games and core scaling up to 6 cores.
enterco
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2008
- 35
- 0
- 18,530
My Z68 allow XMP profile, at the expense of Turbo Boost. AIDA64 show big differences between DDR3-1600/CL7 and DDR3-1333-CL9 on memory-related benchmarks.
Anyway... Why would anyone use a DDR2-2000 kit with a cost of $55-$85 when it could use 'value series' modules which cost $23 each.
So.. what's the point of using DDR3-2000 memory at DDR3-1333 SPD timings ?
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
don you don't know what you are talking about pfft sayign old duke fans are compeltely disapointed is nonsense , i've palyed every duke game to date and i was perfectly pelased with DNF , sure it';s no "game changer" but neither were any of the old duke games, yeah so DN3D had some neeat interactions but it hardly set it';s self off as a pack leader back then. if it had , then younger generations would actually ahve ehard about it more commonly , like they have with doom and quake for isntance. I think you like most teh press , just threw DN3D up on soem pedistal taht it was never really on , and that cause you guys 9and gals) to expect to much from DNF, sure it could ahve been better givin the dev time , but it did cahnge engines twice durrign developemnt , and in the end it's stila duke game , (ie poor AI lotta jokes , and duke's bluntness). now that it's out i'm more concerned with what gear box will do with future iterations of it .. (and i hope like hell they don't turn it into a serious shooter).
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
dang sorry gonna repost this (gotta remind myself not to post when i'm so sleepy 😛)
don you don't know what you are talking about pfft saying old duke fans are compeletely disapointed is nonsense. i've played every duke game to date and i was perfectly pleased with DNF , sure it's no "game changer" but neither were any of the old duke games, yeah so DN3D had some neat interactions but it hardly set it's self up as a pack leader back then. if it had , then younger generations would actually have heard about it more commonly , like they have with doom and quake for instance. I think you like most the press , just threw DN3D up on some pedastal that it was never really on , and that causes you guys (and gals) to expect to much from DNF, sure it could have been better givin the dev time , but it did change engines twice durring development , and in the end it's still a duke game , (ie poor AI lotta jokes , and duke's bluntness). now that it's out i'm more concerned with what gear box will do with future iterations of it .. (and i hope like hell they don't turn it into a serious shooter).
..
also gonna ad , nice article in general though , just think you could have left out the derogatory comments about the game, in an article that is supposed to be about benchmarking the game.
PS. i'm amazed , running win XP still in dx 9 with a dual core athy 64 (5000+ black ed OC'ed to 3 ghz) and i'm runing a radeon 5770 HD , yet my own fraps benches are only slightly lower than yours with every thing maxed and FXAA despite the fact you got a much more beastly processor in your test benches. (this is at 1920x1080 res too), but yeah should have been a no brainer that any one sporting a mid to high end single card could push this game no sweat.
don you don't know what you are talking about pfft saying old duke fans are compeletely disapointed is nonsense. i've played every duke game to date and i was perfectly pleased with DNF , sure it's no "game changer" but neither were any of the old duke games, yeah so DN3D had some neat interactions but it hardly set it's self up as a pack leader back then. if it had , then younger generations would actually have heard about it more commonly , like they have with doom and quake for instance. I think you like most the press , just threw DN3D up on some pedastal that it was never really on , and that causes you guys (and gals) to expect to much from DNF, sure it could have been better givin the dev time , but it did change engines twice durring development , and in the end it's still a duke game , (ie poor AI lotta jokes , and duke's bluntness). now that it's out i'm more concerned with what gear box will do with future iterations of it .. (and i hope like hell they don't turn it into a serious shooter).
..
also gonna ad , nice article in general though , just think you could have left out the derogatory comments about the game, in an article that is supposed to be about benchmarking the game.
PS. i'm amazed , running win XP still in dx 9 with a dual core athy 64 (5000+ black ed OC'ed to 3 ghz) and i'm runing a radeon 5770 HD , yet my own fraps benches are only slightly lower than yours with every thing maxed and FXAA despite the fact you got a much more beastly processor in your test benches. (this is at 1920x1080 res too), but yeah should have been a no brainer that any one sporting a mid to high end single card could push this game no sweat.
So explain to me why you guys waste time doing all these tests that nobody will really care about, being that this game is awful and has gotten really bad reviews..?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Question Will a 120 watt inverter power my gaming laptop?
- Started by nelska
- Replies: 39
-
Question Slow BIOS Boot on MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI – Over 60 Seconds Before Windows Loads- Started by Hardestware
- Replies: 22
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram