- Status
kitsunestarwind
Distinguished
- Dec 24, 2011
- 837
- 0
- 19,160
I don't know about their assumptions on 5870x1080
but i am getting very playable frame rates at 5670x1080 resultion, all settings maxed (UI is a pain in the ass at this res though)
On i7-3930k with 2x 7970's
but i am getting very playable frame rates at 5670x1080 resultion, all settings maxed (UI is a pain in the ass at this res though)
On i7-3930k with 2x 7970's
dscudella
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2012
- 892
- 0
- 11,060
And that person would be you. An A6 for a gaming rig? Without an aftermarket HSF to even allow for OC'ing? You got issued an honest challenge and you replied with that? An A10, ok, great at 1280x720, I'll give you that. Toss in another $30 for a solid HSF, OC it and you've got a low res. contender.
dscudella
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2012
- 892
- 0
- 11,060
*You're (shows my ignorance right?)
Go ahead and "teach" me. If you can prove that your setup would actually be able to run modern games at playable framerates, without dropping frames and stuttering, I will openly apologize to you on these forums.
Until then, I'll stick to what Looniam and I said.
Go ahead and "teach" me. If you can prove that your setup would actually be able to run modern games at playable framerates, without dropping frames and stuttering, I will openly apologize to you on these forums.
Until then, I'll stick to what Looniam and I said.
strife_ff7
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2010
- 656
- 0
- 19,060
Please stop all this amd intel violence! If not for yourselves do it for the children.
PS
I know I probably shouldn't be talking about this there but I liked the article and I'm very much enjoying the game.
PS
I know I probably shouldn't be talking about this there but I liked the article and I'm very much enjoying the game.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
AVX having a bearing on results is certainly an interesting point, however the 8350 would beat the 2100 assuming FC3 could handle as many cores that you throw at it. With the 2100, it sees four logical cores, and it can handle two AVX instructions per clock. The 8350 should theoretically handle four via FlexFPU, unless it's limited to four cores/two FPUs and is handicapped by trying to process 256-bit words between two 128-bit FPUs (which is what FlexFPU is). Additionally, whereas the 8350's FPUs are likely better and able to turbo better than the 4170, if not all of the 8350's execution resources are utilised then this could explain why it's better at keeping a decent mimimum framerate but only able to perform slightly better overall than the 4170. Intel's FPUs seem to be better than AMD's as well, so there's another area which could be stopping the 8350 from flatlining at the same level as the Intel CPUs. As the i3 only has the ability to process two AVX instructions per clock as opposed to four for the i5 and six for the i7 in this example, is the engine simply limiting its use of AVX to two or even one instruction per clock? If it was four, the i3 would fall behind noticably... wouldn't it?
It might be prudent to disable two modules (or simply set affinity) on the 8350 and see what effect it has on performance, as well as two cores on the i5. From the comparison between the SB Pentium and the SB i3, it simply cannot be L3 cache.
It might be prudent to disable two modules (or simply set affinity) on the 8350 and see what effect it has on performance, as well as two cores on the i5. From the comparison between the SB Pentium and the SB i3, it simply cannot be L3 cache.
The game on the pc plays very well.the complaint i have is control.Ubisoft have messed up big style.the control options are sad.you can use gamepad or mouse and keyboard,no mix controls they have disabled the mouse if use you gamepad.Needs a patch and quick.forums are alive with discontent about this.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
Very interesting:
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
The i7-920 doesn't make use of AVX at all. Also, at such high details, the i3 suffers.
It's looking very much to do with memory speed in the end, which could explain why the 920 does so damned well despite its lowly 2.66GHz clock.
http://www.techspot.com/review/615-far-cry-3-performance/page6.html
The i7-920 doesn't make use of AVX at all. Also, at such high details, the i3 suffers.
It's looking very much to do with memory speed in the end, which could explain why the 920 does so damned well despite its lowly 2.66GHz clock.
I'm quite disappointed in this review. On high settings, they don't include a 680, and the only crossfire and sli setups were mid-ranged cards. Then on the medium settings, they don't even include the high end cards at all, which might be very common for those cards given how low the performance is.
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 8,938
- 2,112
- 42,140
Yep, it could be outgunning it by mere core quantity. Since the game does scale well, it's one explanation.
If it's not AVX the advantage, then what can it be? SSE4? A Mix of AVX and SSE4? Also, Westmere had pretty good IPC for having a low clock speed, so it could be better at crunching SSE3 with its arch than SB's i5s and i7s with AVX xD
Cheers!
dscudella
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2012
- 892
- 0
- 11,060
I think it might be the AVX more than anything. If you think about it, the i5-3470 has 4 Cores while the i7-920 has 4 Cores and 8 Threads. On paper the i7 should beat the i5 if FC3 is utilizing more than 4 cores. Now look at the i3-2100. It has 2 Cores & 4 Threads and it is toe to toe with the i5 & i7.
AVX has to be the difference.
sugetsu
Distinguished
- Jan 29, 2009
- 87
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]omg i can't believe these comments... it must be a pita sometimes to get an article out.This article is about a game called Far Cry 3 and its performance numbers with specific hardware. It's only responsibility is to that game and the hardware tested. The article does not reach beyond that. Everything is presented properly. It is not Tom's responsibility to account for every possible little complaint that may come up from the community. There's a million, remember. It's the reader's responsibility to take the information provided and do something with it, or nothing at all.When I saw the CPU chart, the first thing I noticed was the i3. Who didn't think in their head what was stated? Everybody, or nearly everyone. The comment was perfectly fine as it was relating directly to this game and this test and didn't wander outside of that box. So what's the problem? Smart people are worried about dumb people? [/citation]
If you are good at reading comprehension then you would understand that the way an article is worded determines the tone of the subject. The reviewer should have said: There is no virtual difference between the i3, i5, i7 and FX 8350. Instead he chose to nitpick on a 3 frame difference and worded it in such a way that it casts the FX processor in a very bad light, needlessly, unless you are biased or have an agenda.
You might like or dislike what I just said, but this is a fact. If the reviewer was just careless about how he words this article then he is making a very unprofessional mistake.
If you are good at reading comprehension then you would understand that the way an article is worded determines the tone of the subject. The reviewer should have said: There is no virtual difference between the i3, i5, i7 and FX 8350. Instead he chose to nitpick on a 3 frame difference and worded it in such a way that it casts the FX processor in a very bad light, needlessly, unless you are biased or have an agenda.
You might like or dislike what I just said, but this is a fact. If the reviewer was just careless about how he words this article then he is making a very unprofessional mistake.
mohit9206
Distinguished
- Aug 8, 2012
- 1,914
- 0
- 20,160
the minimum amd build that can do some serious gaming at low 720p resolution is an A10 or A8 but not A6. A6 is dual core while A8 and A10 are quad cores and also have better integreted radeon graphics.
also A6 does not support 6670 in crossfire while A8 and A10 do
also A6 does not support 6670 in crossfire while A8 and A10 do
dscudella
Honorable
- Sep 10, 2012
- 892
- 0
- 11,060
That's great that you know the difference between your & you're. The fact is you still used it wrong and now you're insulting me by saying that I'm no smarter than a third grader.
Also, that's three people who call your A6 build BS. If you still want to try to post some benchmarks and "teach me", as you so eloquently put it, I'll be waiting. Until then, my offer still stands, even with how rude and arrogant you've been.
One last point. The challenge was issued to you because you were cocky that you could do it. Not me.
Also, that's three people who call your A6 build BS. If you still want to try to post some benchmarks and "teach me", as you so eloquently put it, I'll be waiting. Until then, my offer still stands, even with how rude and arrogant you've been.
One last point. The challenge was issued to you because you were cocky that you could do it. Not me.
Here, so both of you (tourist and dscudella) could finally put this petty matter behind you.
tourist, sorry to point this out he/she was referring to this statement.
And I believe dscudella was right, but I think it was childish and off topic, the way he/she pointed that word error out.
dscudella, I understand that you responded the way you did because you probably were offended, but hey, if you read back, I would say you started it. It seems that tourist at first called looniam a fool because of his/her possibly offensive joke, but then you come in and redirected it to tourist. Point is, you could've been more polite with your opinion since as far as I saw, you guys didn't have any beef with each other (yet). And now look, quite a few comments were put to waste (IMO) just because of that (and some misunderstandings).
Now would you guys just kiss and make up now? :lol: But seriously, quit it you two and be more productive with your discussions.
tourist, sorry to point this out he/she was referring to this statement.
dscudella, I understand that you responded the way you did because you probably were offended, but hey, if you read back, I would say you started it. It seems that tourist at first called looniam a fool because of his/her possibly offensive joke, but then you come in and redirected it to tourist. Point is, you could've been more polite with your opinion since as far as I saw, you guys didn't have any beef with each other (yet). And now look, quite a few comments were put to waste (IMO) just because of that (and some misunderstandings).
Now would you guys just kiss and make up now? :lol: But seriously, quit it you two and be more productive with your discussions.
ojas
Distinguished
- Feb 25, 2011
- 2,924
- 0
- 20,810
Just a small thought i'd like to toss in.
I used to have a 9600GT. If you check Tom's charts, it's about 3 tiers above the 7660D in the A10.
the A10 is as such as good as (if not slightly better than) my Core 2 Quad Q8400, gaming or otherwise.
I play at 1024x768 (old CRT
).
I could play BF3 single player, medium-high (custom) at b/w 30 and 55 fps
Crysis 2 DX9, high at 45 to 60 fps (2xAA i think) and extreme at around 28-35 fps (no AA).
Portal 2 at max, 8xAA, 60+ fps
FIFA 07 and America's Army 2 at max details and MSAA (even SSAA) was usually in excess of 85 fps
CoD MW 1/2/3, max settings, 4xAA, 30 fps +
Tomb Raider Underworld maxed out would be around 60 i think
NFS Shift, High settings, 30 fps with AA (can't remember exact settings)
NFS Most Wanted, max settings + AA: usually above 60 fps
NFS Hot Pursuit: would get minimums of 20, but that's a bad port really.
Can't remember any more for now.
Point of this is that i don't think i would go below an A10-5800K when gaming with the IGP for 1024x768 or 1280x720. That would just be too much of a compromise.
At least, i wouldn't wave flags and say "look this is where AMD beats Intel!!!!".
Because:
A) You're not comparing x86 performance here (and really the argument should end here unless you're talking about the entire build for the lowest possible price while still serving decent performance).
B) FC3 would probably decimate it (9600GT>=Radeon HD 6670), so bringing it up in this article is probably not a good idea.
True, FC3 seems to favour IPC and seems to be optimised for HTT till 4 threads (some people are discussing AVX and all, i don't know enough to comment on that).
But, i'm going to think simple here. The 8350 (8C/8T) has twice the resources of the A10 (4C/4T).
And FC3 seems to be able to utilize 4T at max.
Thus an A10's raw performance would be just about 5% less than half of the 8350, considering clock rate differences.
So in this chart (which won't post the first time, sadly)
The A10 would have 36.4035 GFLOPS and 57.435 GIPS.
Which is 95.07% and 92.32% of the respective numbers for the i3-2100.
Now the avg fps is 98.01% of the i3-2100 and the min is 93.44%, for the FX-8350.
Conclusions? None really, just a data point. If GIPS and GFLOPS were important here the i7 and i5 would have seen higher numbers.
So who knows, maybe there's a platform limitation, or that extremely high (L3?) cache latency for The FX chip.
Or whatever AVX thingy. Advanced Vector eXtentions is it called?...(...)...Ah yes, they do call it that.
I used to have a 9600GT. If you check Tom's charts, it's about 3 tiers above the 7660D in the A10.
the A10 is as such as good as (if not slightly better than) my Core 2 Quad Q8400, gaming or otherwise.
I play at 1024x768 (old CRT
).I could play BF3 single player, medium-high (custom) at b/w 30 and 55 fps
Crysis 2 DX9, high at 45 to 60 fps (2xAA i think) and extreme at around 28-35 fps (no AA).
Portal 2 at max, 8xAA, 60+ fps
FIFA 07 and America's Army 2 at max details and MSAA (even SSAA) was usually in excess of 85 fps
CoD MW 1/2/3, max settings, 4xAA, 30 fps +
Tomb Raider Underworld maxed out would be around 60 i think
NFS Shift, High settings, 30 fps with AA (can't remember exact settings)
NFS Most Wanted, max settings + AA: usually above 60 fps
NFS Hot Pursuit: would get minimums of 20, but that's a bad port really.
Can't remember any more for now.
Point of this is that i don't think i would go below an A10-5800K when gaming with the IGP for 1024x768 or 1280x720. That would just be too much of a compromise.
At least, i wouldn't wave flags and say "look this is where AMD beats Intel!!!!".
Because:
A) You're not comparing x86 performance here (and really the argument should end here unless you're talking about the entire build for the lowest possible price while still serving decent performance).
B) FC3 would probably decimate it (9600GT>=Radeon HD 6670), so bringing it up in this article is probably not a good idea.
True, FC3 seems to favour IPC and seems to be optimised for HTT till 4 threads (some people are discussing AVX and all, i don't know enough to comment on that).
But, i'm going to think simple here. The 8350 (8C/8T) has twice the resources of the A10 (4C/4T).
And FC3 seems to be able to utilize 4T at max.
Thus an A10's raw performance would be just about 5% less than half of the 8350, considering clock rate differences.
So in this chart (which won't post the first time, sadly)
The A10 would have 36.4035 GFLOPS and 57.435 GIPS.
Which is 95.07% and 92.32% of the respective numbers for the i3-2100.
Now the avg fps is 98.01% of the i3-2100 and the min is 93.44%, for the FX-8350.
Conclusions? None really, just a data point. If GIPS and GFLOPS were important here the i7 and i5 would have seen higher numbers.
So who knows, maybe there's a platform limitation, or that extremely high (L3?) cache latency for The FX chip.
Or whatever AVX thingy. Advanced Vector eXtentions is it called?...(...)...Ah yes, they do call it that.
alacritous
Distinguished
- May 19, 2011
- 12
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]shahrooz[/nom]this game runs incredibly slow in DX11 compared to DX9 and the graphics are almost the same. I get like 30~40 FPS in DX11 ultra 1080p and 110~120 fps in DX9 ultra 1080pI use 310.70 drivers and evga GTX 580 in SLI[/citation]
No really? I'm sure adding directx11 specific features won't reduce the performance at all?
Of course it's more demanding, you're enabling (and setting on ultra) more features than are available in dx9.
Ideally, dx11 should (SHOULD) be more efficient than dx9, given equal settings. In this case, it's not.
No really? I'm sure adding directx11 specific features won't reduce the performance at all?
Of course it's more demanding, you're enabling (and setting on ultra) more features than are available in dx9.
Ideally, dx11 should (SHOULD) be more efficient than dx9, given equal settings. In this case, it's not.
[citation][nom]dscudella[/nom]I think it might be the AVX more than anything. If you think about it, the i5-3470 has 4 Cores while the i7-920 has 4 Cores and 8 Threads. On paper the i7 should beat the i5 if FC3 is utilizing more than 4 cores. Now look at the i3-2100. It has 2 Cores & 4 Threads and it is toe to toe with the i5 & i7. AVX has to be the difference.[/citation]
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]Very interesting:http://www.techspot.com/review/615 [...] page6.htmlThe i7-920 doesn't make use of AVX at all. Also, at such high details, the i3 suffers. It's looking very much to do with memory speed in the end, which could explain why the 920 does so damned well despite its lowly 2.66GHz clock.[/citation]
AVX instruction is there but software has to use it in order to benefit from it, same for FMA in current AMD CPUs. I am not sure if current games use or need it, and there are compatibility issues as they are relatively new. I can only recall Just Cause 2 is the only game that needs a specific CPU instruction (SSE3). My theory is CPU's memory bandwidth to main memory (up to a point) has a lot to do with gaming performance in general. Starting Nehalem, the memory bandwidth gets a huge jump compare to previous Core 2.
[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]Very interesting:http://www.techspot.com/review/615 [...] page6.htmlThe i7-920 doesn't make use of AVX at all. Also, at such high details, the i3 suffers. It's looking very much to do with memory speed in the end, which could explain why the 920 does so damned well despite its lowly 2.66GHz clock.[/citation]
AVX instruction is there but software has to use it in order to benefit from it, same for FMA in current AMD CPUs. I am not sure if current games use or need it, and there are compatibility issues as they are relatively new. I can only recall Just Cause 2 is the only game that needs a specific CPU instruction (SSE3). My theory is CPU's memory bandwidth to main memory (up to a point) has a lot to do with gaming performance in general. Starting Nehalem, the memory bandwidth gets a huge jump compare to previous Core 2.
silverblue
Distinguished
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,199
- 4
- 19,285
Exactly... which is why I cooled my enthusiasm as regards AVX. The i3 only has two FPUs, which, if using AVX, should mean that the i5, i7 and 8350 should thrash it soundly.
I had another think about memory, and if it really was so important, the i7-3960X would annihilate the field. So, back to square one...
I had another think about memory, and if it really was so important, the i7-3960X would annihilate the field. So, back to square one...
@shahrooz
In addition to what alacritous said (Thumbed you up for that BTW. ), I have heard of talk as to why Crysis 3 (or maybe even CryEngine 3 itself) can only be run with DirectX 11 systems (and thus requiring at least Windows 7). They supposedly cleaned out the older DirectX 9 and used more efficient (as mentioned by alacritous) DirectX 11 code.
In addition to what alacritous said (Thumbed you up for that BTW.
), I have heard of talk as to why Crysis 3 (or maybe even CryEngine 3 itself) can only be run with DirectX 11 systems (and thus requiring at least Windows 7). They supposedly cleaned out the older DirectX 9 and used more efficient (as mentioned by alacritous) DirectX 11 code. @silverblue, Th-z, and others talking about memory bandwidth
I'd like to give some friendly input. Bulldozer's IMC is supposedly substantially inefficient compared the Sandy/Ivy Bridges. I forgot (if ever I found out) if Piledriver really improved in that department... But yeah, just some food for thought though you guys may have already known and acknowledged this.
I'm feeling to lazy right now to go back to the chart and see if it did have any bearing on the CPU results.
I'd like to give some friendly input. Bulldozer's IMC is supposedly substantially inefficient compared the Sandy/Ivy Bridges. I forgot (if ever I found out) if Piledriver really improved in that department... But yeah, just some food for thought though you guys may have already known and acknowledged this.
I'm feeling to lazy right now to go back to the chart and see if it did have any bearing on the CPU results.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram