]1) Dur... No maximum FPS. It's average. You now have nothing to say since both of us read the graph incorrectly.
Still an obvious GPU bottleneck compressing results. One reason I hate techspot, since they always end up with compressed CPU benchmark results.
2) It doesn't take as much threads to do 768P as 4K. Physics would be much less requiring.'
Resolution output and physics processing are entirely separate entities that are handled differently.
Physics falls into the "embarrassingly parallel" category anyway, and really shouldn't be performed on the CPU in the first place. That's one reason why all games use very simple physics engines, in order to drive down processing requirements. In any case, pretty much all games reduce physics down to just on game thread, since the implementation is so simple.
Pixel pushing is pure GPU horsepower. The number of threads for rendering remains constant regardless of the resolution you are trying to push.
3) Sigh... I don't know if you're bothering to read my reply. I said that where more threads are utilized (e.g.: video editing), more threads are better. In 4K, that apparently happens. That's why the i7-5820K pulls more FPS than i7-6700K at 2K or 4K.
A task like video editing scales nicely, and I would expect a linear performance increase as you increase the number of CPU cores.
Games do not scale nicely, at all. Games at 1080p. 2k or 4k use the same number of threads, since pixel output is the domain of the GPU, not CPU.
I also note the lack of benchmarks given to support your claim the 5820k is faster at 2k/4k, since a casual search on my end failed to confirm this.
4) No, I don't subscribe to the AMD fanboy logic. More cores doesn't equal more FPS. FX-8150 isn't the most powerful. What I said was, where games benefit from more threads, it's there that you pull more FPS if you had more cores. i5 is king at 1080P because it has enough single-threaded performance and cores. At 2K and 4K, like I said, i7-5820K has enough single-threaded performance and cores to do well there. At 720P, games were satisfied with Core 2 Duo. It's a combination of single-threaded performance and cores, not just cores.
See above point.
OK guys lets take a step back, take a breath and agree to disagree. Honestly why are people arguing over two great CPUs?
Because it's not OK to be technically wrong, then making an argument based on an incorrect understanding of how things worse. If we are going to recommend a product to others, we have to be correct on the reasons for recommending it. Simple as that.
Now, I'd love to give actual benchmarks to prove my point once and for all, but it seems every review site under the sun loves testing CPUs in GPU bottlenecked situations now, so every comparison I've found between the two lineups of CPUs comes up null, given the GPU compressing results. Really no reason sites shouldn't be doing these reviews right by using SLI'd 980 TIs or something.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram