Jump to content

(Update: 12/26/14)Lets Put To Bed The Amd Fx Performance Rumors In Mwo.


171 replies to this topic

#1 Lordred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 21 September 2014 - 07:24 PM

12/26/14 Data

An Overclocked run, and a full stock run on the same map, using my Shadowhawk-2D

Stock Run: Avg FPS 52.74, MIN 26
Posted Image

Overclocked run: AVG FPS 59.43, MIN 38
Posted Image



12/25/14 Data

AMD FX-8350
FSB: 200
CPU: 4500mhz, HT: 2600mhz, NB: 2200mhz
DRAM: 1866mhz 9-10-9
GPU: GTX 980 (Default)

Display Resolution: 1920x1080
Video Settings: Very High





Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



12/23/14 Data

AMD FX-8350
FSB: 210
CPU: 4200mhz, HT: 2730mhz, NB: 2310mhz
DRAM: 1950mhz 9-10-9
GPU: GTX 980 (Default)

Display Resolution: 1920x1080
Video Settings: Very High


Community Warfare 64-bit
Snow Map
Posted Image

Snow Map with HUD disabled.
Posted Image




10/3/14 Data
Spoiler

Edited by Lordred, 27 December 2014 - 09:17 AM.


#2 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 22 September 2014 - 05:39 AM

Have you heard the thing about using Processor Lasso (or Bill2's Process Manager) to restrict the game to only one integer core per module? 'Cause the Twelve Named Threads all want full math-co access?

If you set a framerate limit equal to the Hz of your screens, how bad are the dips?

Thanks for the graphs …

#3 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:34 AM

What OS was this tested on?

(EDIT: Thank you for adding it to the OP! And for answering :) Always curious to see if the improved scheduler actually helps the FX CPUs at all in Win8)

Edited by MercJ, 22 September 2014 - 09:49 AM.


#4 Lordred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:36 AM

Windows 8.1 64bit

Edited by Lordred, 22 September 2014 - 09:39 AM.


#5 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:51 AM

Next step: see if we can isolate a graphic setting that is the source of the AMD/FX bottleneck ;)

(Incidentally, I'd be willing to try and reproduce this and help answer the above - what did you use to capture core utilization?)

#6 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:52 AM

Object Detail, Shadows, and Environment all load the CPU, 'cording to Mr. Berg.

Particles! How can I forget! :wacko:

Edited by Goose, 22 September 2014 - 10:01 AM.


#7 MercJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • Galaxy Commander III
  • 184 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:55 AM

View PostGoose, on 22 September 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

Object Detail, Shadows, and Environment all load the CPU, 'cording to Mr. Berg.


Thanks for finding this! That thread is awesome, by the way...

Lordred, feel up to setting these three to med/low and testing again (stock CPU speeds probably)? :D

#8 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:59 AM

Having a bad time finding the post, but it's around here, somewhere.

#9 Lordred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:15 AM

No problem,I did those tests on a whim lastnight.

I am willing to do the following when I get home if people are intrested.

1: test various settings
2: 2 mod 4 core
3: 3 mod 6 core
4: 1 core per mod

#10 Odins Fist

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,111 posts
  • LocationThe North

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:33 AM

View PostLordred, on 21 September 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

TL:DR
Spoiler


Tests were performed during normal game play

Test bed:
CPU: FX-8350
Mainboard: ASRock 990FX Professional
GPU: Nvidia eVGA GTX 680 4GB Classified
Dram: 2x4GB 1866 9-10-9 1.5v
Drive: Crucial M4 256gb SSD (480mb/Read, 370mb/Write)
OS: Windows 8.1Pro 64bit
Test Settings:
Resolution: 1920x1080
Settings: Very High preset
Damage Glow: On
AA Mode: Post AA

At default clock speeds, the FX-8350 cannot maintain 60fps with this setup.



So whats the short version of this mean for AMD users?
OC the **** out of it, or get an Intel.



There are MANY of US (meaning ME specifically) that have been saying this since the FX- series came out and were tested against the older Phenom II x6 thubans OC'd and later the Intell 2011 and 1150 socket CPUs.

Don't even get me started on just how badly the FX-series get curbstomped by Intel CPUs that aren't clocked anywhere near an OC'd FX CPU.

FYI, I was an AMD fan for over 10 years, NOT ANY LONGER..!!

EDIT: When AMD's Flagship CPU couldn't manage to compete with a middle of the road Intel CPU, then it was obvious FX was a fail on the part of AMD.

They have been developing a replacement for the FX series CPUs with a major redesign to the architecture.

I completely skipped the FX-series CPUs, and I have (2) Asus 990FX Mobos, the Sabertooth (rev 1) and Crosshair V (rev 1).... After seeing how much NOT of an upgrade the FX series was over the Phenom II thubans I decided to just clock the Thubans a tiny bit higher...

I'm so glad I didn't WASTE my money on an FX series CPU..

DOUBLE EDIT: I guess I shouldn't be soooo harsh, but it never made sense to upgrade until I decided to go Intel. (After seeing my good friend's Intel rig perform).

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 September 2014 - 10:59 AM.


#11 JigSaw73

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 24 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationRoswell, NM

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:50 AM

First of all,

I didn't realize this is an issue. I have the following specs and I get between 35 fps (on the dip in intense combat) and 45 fps consistently. If it spikes, it goes up to the 60-70 fps range but I don't think I've seen it drop below 45 since I built this machine. Which, actually, I built this on the cheap from a DIY kit on NewEgg just so I could play MWO without any lag at the end of 2013 (still had an Intel Dual Core CPU at the time).

AMD FX 6300 Six Core 3.5Ghz
8.0 GB RAM
Win 7 Home Premium (64-bit OS)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 660
Dual HP x20LED (20") Monitors
ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device (5.1 Surround Sound Card)

I run MWO at:
Very High Preset
1600 x 900 (my Desktop Resolution)
Windwo Mode = Full Window
Direct X Version = DX11
Motion Blur = High
V-Sync = ON
Damage Glow = ON
Brightness = 0
Gamma = 0
AA Mode = PostAA

..sometimes I stream but I never have any lag...

Recently some micro-stuttering at the beginning and end of ever match, but that was introduced about 2 or 3 patches ago and never went away. Oh well, it wasn't there before. :-/

Secondly,

I like the screenshot thread in your forum signature...very cool! Thanks for the link!! :-)

Edited by JigSaw73, 22 September 2014 - 10:52 AM.


#12 ninjitsu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 402 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 11:58 AM

1600 x 900 is a pretty mild resolution. The FX CPU's struggle more with the bigger resolutions. Just for a comparison, my i5 4670k holds 50-60 pretty rock solid and my video card is fairly weaker than yours.

#13 Flapdrol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 12:10 PM

Resolution only stresses the gpu, completely cpu independant.

#14 Summon3r

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Locationowning in sommet non meta

Posted 22 September 2014 - 12:15 PM

View PostJigSaw73, on 22 September 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

First of all,

I didn't realize this is an issue. I have the following specs and I get between 35 fps (on the dip in intense combat) and 45 fps consistently. If it spikes, it goes up to the 60-70 fps range but I don't think I've seen it drop below 45 since I built this machine. Which, actually, I built this on the cheap from a DIY kit on NewEgg just so I could play MWO without any lag at the end of 2013 (still had an Intel Dual Core CPU at the time).

AMD FX 6300 Six Core 3.5Ghz
8.0 GB RAM
Win 7 Home Premium (64-bit OS)
Nvidia GeForce GTX 660
Dual HP x20LED (20") Monitors
ASUS Xonar DG Audio Device (5.1 Surround Sound Card)

I run MWO at:
Very High Preset
1600 x 900 (my Desktop Resolution)
Windwo Mode = Full Window
Direct X Version = DX11
Motion Blur = High
V-Sync = ON
Damage Glow = ON
Brightness = 0
Gamma = 0
AA Mode = PostAA

..sometimes I stream but I never have any lag...

Recently some micro-stuttering at the beginning and end of ever match, but that was introduced about 2 or 3 patches ago and never went away. Oh well, it wasn't there before. :-/

Secondly,

I like the screenshot thread in your forum signature...very cool! Thanks for the link!! :-)


res 1600x900, exactly for me personally (and i suspect most others) anything less then 1080 is unacceptable these days. plus dipping fps at that res ouch.

but at least you can play and if that is good for u then perfect. the more players we have the better... fyi fx-6300 overclocks very very well give it a shot you should be able to hit 4.2+ ghz np and increase your settings across the board

#15 Goose

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 3,463 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationThat flattop, up the well, overhead

Posted 22 September 2014 - 08:59 PM

View PostMercJ, on 22 September 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

Thanks for finding this! That thread is awesome, by the way …

I derp'd: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3217828

#16 Reported for Inappropriate Name

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,767 posts
  • LocationAmericlap

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:13 PM

yeah that sounds about right, with my older phenom 2 i even have this problem. Of course since I have an unlocked 555 and it was not optimized for quad core operation, even after power optimizations in the bios I still run at around 155 watts. Overclocks tend to get me over the safe limit because my cooler was not designed for the fires of hell and phenom 2's cannot operate over 55-60c.

of course this is the only game that will shut my computer down when I overclock, even if its a simple 4-600hz bump that needs almost no voltage increase. Crysis and amd do not mix because the crytek engine is a ****** mess and only intel has that kind of spare horsepower lying around.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 September 2014 - 09:14 PM.


#17 Lordred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:15 PM

repairing my client, I derped it up.

Continuing tests with 1 Core per Module.

#18 Dark DeLaurel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 579 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationWarShip Sleipnir, Spinward-Coreward Quadrant

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:07 PM

View PostLordred, on 22 September 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

repairing my client, I derped it up.

Continuing tests with 1 Core per Module.


So how are you restricting it to specific cores? Just through task manager?

#19 Oderint dum Metuant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,758 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:26 PM

There used to be people on these forums that defended FX chips (looks at catamount :-p)

#20 Lordred

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,474 posts

Posted 22 September 2014 - 10:52 PM

View PostDark DeLaurel, on 22 September 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:


So how are you restricting it to specific cores? Just through task manager?


Reason I chose the 990FX Professional from AS Rock was due to the crazy amount of features it had, one of them being 1CpM

Posted Image


Anyways, game is all fixed and resuming tests, I will get out the default clock and OC graphs for 1080p while running on 1 core per module.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users