171 replies to this topic

[Dark DeLaurel]

Lordred, on 22 September 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

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




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.

Damn now that is a feature i would never have thought to see, too bad its an AMD board lol Good luck with your testing!

[Lordred]

So running the 8350 as a true quad core did in fact have zero effect. Core utilization is up on the four cores because there are not any others to offset the load to.

Gonna call this myth busted pending further evidence.

Edited by Lordred, 22 September 2014 - 11:23 PM.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Nice work Lorded, very nice.

[B0oN]

Thanks for all the hard work involved, sheds some light on interesting things even if I do not use AMD .

Stay strong AMD-users, time may come where your CPU´s are ahead of the rest (hopefully) !

[Lordred]

Similar to the full chip results, with the CPU running 1core per module, and increasing the CPU to 4700mhz / 2400mhz Northbridge / 2133 Dram, we get nearly identical results to running all eight cores.

[Flapdrol]

But with only 1 core per module you can clock further right?

anyway, does that software have an option for average cpu load? Now it seems to be switching from core to core all the time, no way to really read the graph.

Edited by Flapdrol, 23 September 2014 - 03:11 AM.

[Lordred]

I can look into that.

[Hardin4188]

I loved detailed hardware reviews like this. This is why I haven't had an amd since the original phenom sadly. But I still support Radeon graphics at least! AMD will release their new cpu architecture within the next year or so I believe and hopefully it'll be more competitive.

[IcedOmega13]

Maybe an off topic question but a lot of tech heads in here, but if my current CPU is an intel q9650 @3ghz would I see that much of a performance gain in MWO by upgrading to a new i5 or i7 processor or is this game more GPU reliant?

[Jetfire]

I bought the FX-8350 precisely because it loves an air overclock of 4.6-4.7 Ghz and for that it is a decent bargain. That has honestly been what keeps me an AMD customer, they sell unlocked chips that typically overclock well on air at a reasonable price. Intel may be superior but if AMD ever goes under...

[Summon3r]

IcedOmega13, on 23 September 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Maybe an off topic question but a lot of tech heads in here, but if my current CPU is an intel q9650 @3ghz would I see that much of a performance gain in MWO by upgrading to a new i5 or i7 processor or is this game more GPU reliant?

what are u getting in terms of performance? what level are u running the game at? whats your complete system specs?.... MWO is massively cpu reliant to answer your second question.

[Dark DeLaurel]

IcedOmega13, on 23 September 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Maybe an off topic question but a lot of tech heads in here, but if my current CPU is an intel q9650 @3ghz would I see that much of a performance gain in MWO by upgrading to a new i5 or i7 processor or is this game more GPU reliant?

In MWO most likely not, as reports are all over the map on performance. Your Q is just an update to my old QX and i was getting a pretty consistent 50FPS with it and that was even using XFire 7970s. Other games though you will notice an improvement for sure.

Jetfire, on 23 September 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

I bought the FX-8350 precisely because it loves an air overclock of 4.6-4.7 Ghz and for that it is a decent bargain. That has honestly been what keeps me an AMD customer, they sell unlocked chips that typically overclock well on air at a reasonable price. Intel may be superior but if AMD ever goes under...

AMD CPUs have pretty much went under, they have not been competitive for Intel for a long time. Which is most likely the reason Intel's whole Tick/Tock cycle has been skipping a beat. I do like some of their options though both my HTPC's run AMD CPUs (old one is an Phenom II current one is an APU 10), but gaming wise and mobile they just lose out 90% of the time.

[Iron Riding Cowboy]

Dark DeLaurel, on 23 September 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

In MWO most likely not, as reports are all over the map on performance. Your Q is just an update to my old QX and i was getting a pretty consistent 50FPS with it and that was even using XFire 7970s. Other games though you will notice an improvement for sure.



AMD CPUs have pretty much went under, they have not been competitive for Intel for a long time. Which is most likely the reason Intel's whole Tick/Tock cycle has been skipping a beat. I do like some of their options though both my HTPC's run AMD CPUs (old one is an Phenom II current one is an APU 10), but gaming wise and mobile they just lose out 90% of the time.

Intel's whole Tick/Tock cycle has been skipping a beat is because they are hitting a brick wall.. we cant really go much smaller with silicone. all there is left we can do is keep adding more and more cores but even that will quickly hit diminishing returns or go with a new tech.

[Catamount]

Iron's right, with a caveat. They're hitting a brick wall because of the limits of the silicone (including OCing, we might even be hitting the first generations that are losing peformance anytime now), but also the limits of their architecture. CMT may have been a flop, but at least AMD was trying to get creative, and odds are they're learning all sorts of things in the process. Intel hasn't changed things much fundamentally, really, since Nehalem (the biggest fundamental change was the inclusion of a GPU), and iirc, that draws heavily from the P6 architecture, introduced in the 90s.

Now, I'm sure lots of architectural features get re-used, because reinventing the wheel is expensive, but in refusing to innovate beyond little steps, Intel is leaving the door open for AMD to catch up, and AMD knows exactly what target it has to hit to do so, as well as many of Intel's weaknesses that it can capitalize on from integrated GPUs to Intel socket plans to mostly-locked multipliers.

Edited by Catamount, 24 September 2014 - 05:34 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Dunno catamount, intel is selling chips half the size for twice the price and they're even wasting die space on onboard gpu's. They have fundamental improvements, just not really obvious ones.

[Dark DeLaurel]

Iron Riding Cowboy, on 24 September 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

Intel's whole Tick/Tock cycle has been skipping a beat is because they are hitting a brick wall.. we cant really go much smaller with silicone. all there is left we can do is keep adding more and more cores but even that will quickly hit diminishing returns or go with a new tech.

Well yes there is that also, but look at them mothballing that massive fab in Ohio i think it is. Just looked it was Fab42 in Arizona http://goo.gl/sDbluM there is other things going on that i don't think we quite know about. As they have been doing quite the job in a new style transistor i cant seem to remember the name of (which is making google harder to use lol) it will lead us to 7nm but beyond that i dont think we will see much more.

TSMC is lagging behind majorly so other companies like AMD are unable to drop down in nm as quickly as Intel has been, which is hurting them (AMD). So it will be interesting to see how next year turns out for chips in general.

[Catamount]

Oh I agree, Flapdrol, AMD does have their work cut out for them. I'm just saying, at least they have a more or less stationary target to hit now, and there are a few things they can go after to help be attractive.

I'm firmly in Intel's camp right now, but I certainly hope AMD is up to the task in front of them, and I'd guess they have a middling chance.

[BARBAR0SSA]

IcedOmega13, on 23 September 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Maybe an off topic question but a lot of tech heads in here, but if my current CPU is an intel q9650 @3ghz would I see that much of a performance gain in MWO by upgrading to a new i5 or i7 processor or is this game more GPU reliant?

I've got an i5 3570k(whichever is the unlocked one) and it's OC'ed quite a lot
With a 7870

I have to run it at 1080 with around medium details, MWO spikes all over the place with FPS. However that might be GPU releated as MWO is a nVidia supported title and they were busted for doing some shady things with other TWIMTPB titles such as Batman, which has been proven.

But assuming it's not shady tactics, unless you have a very beefy card i5 won't help, it's one of those processors I'm pissed I paid a lot for as from time to time it seems to bottleneck pretty good under extreme load eg. Having Archeage sitting there at the queue screen and trying to play MWO, I definitely feel FPS dips when CPU activity happens.
Even without other stuff happening, my FPS jumps all over the place from 40-100.

[Lordred]

Been playing with my shiny new GTX980. Testing will resume soon.

[Flapdrol]

shad0w4life, on 25 September 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

I've got an i5 3570k(whichever is the unlocked one) and it's OC'ed quite a lot
With a 7870

I have to run it at 1080 with around medium details, MWO spikes all over the place with FPS. However that might be GPU releated as MWO is a nVidia supported title and they were busted for doing some shady things with other TWIMTPB titles such as Batman, which has been proven.

But assuming it's not shady tactics, unless you have a very beefy card i5 won't help, it's one of those processors I'm pissed I paid a lot for as from time to time it seems to bottleneck pretty good under extreme load eg. Having Archeage sitting there at the queue screen and trying to play MWO, I definitely feel FPS dips when CPU activity happens.
Even without other stuff happening, my FPS jumps all over the place from 40-100.

There's no shady tactics, on the testing grounds everyone's game runs flawlessly, it's not the rendering part that's the problem, but the multiplayer gameplay, which demands more per core performance. minimum in the 40's on medium is actually pretty good compared to most systems.

Edited by Flapdrol, 26 September 2014 - 01:05 AM.