94 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

This is from the non winter map, and a base defend. Seems like my numbers are getting a bit better since I updated my bios, and went back thru and re tweaked my system. I have it at 4.9 Ghz and only a V-core of 1.46 and she is stable. I have already listed my settings, all high to very high, post AA, no mods to my config. files or glass turned off, or glow turned off.

2014-12-27 01:08:31 - MWOClient
Frames: 9179 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 50.994 - Min: 30 - Max: 85 CW, base defend

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 26 December 2014 - 11:01 PM.

[Thorqemada]

The FPS lows were from some loading Action (i expect i would not have them would i use a SSD) - they dont happen after the Wave has settled - >40 to >50 avgFPS is pretty good for me.

In the last 5 years my energy consume shrunk by1000kw/h and OCing would not help me to save energy.
In fact my PC still uns on Balanced Energy Settings and clocks down at low action - i only changed the Hard Drives to allways on bcs it causes huge lags when they stop spinning and is probably not good for the mechanic to start and stop every few minutes.

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 December 2014 - 12:07 AM.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Thorqemada, on 27 December 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

The FPS lows were from some loading Action (i expect i would not have them would i use a SSD) - they dont happen after the Wave has settled - >40 to >50 avgFPS is pretty good for me.

In the last 5 years my energy consume shrunk by1000kw/h and OCing would not help me to save energy.
In fact my PC still uns on Balanced Energy Settings and clocks down at low action - i only changed the Hard Drives to allways on bcs it causes huge lags when they stop spinning and is probably not good for the mechanic to start and stop every few minutes.

A boot SSD is like a whole new world vs. regular hard drives. Once you try one, you are not going back. Right now, best SSD to get is Samsung 850, if you can afford it. I have 2 older Corsair SSDs in RAID 0 and it's pretty nice. I used to wait for almost 3 minutes for everything to load at boot up time, using regular hard drive (even in raid0), and now it's seconds. Have you tried turning off a few cores in your BIOS, even for the 'green feeling's' sake?? That would save you energy. Most newer motherboards have that option--you can manually disable 3 or the 6 cores, for example, if you so wanted, and run on 3 cylinders, so to speak.

[Thorqemada]

I did not try to disable Cores or Undervolt since i switched to this System - it idles at ~30W less than the old System and that was good enough for me - the top Performance comes at ~100W less (GTA IV i.e.) bcs i have better PSUs and often the Software/Games do not use full computing power and i play games at 150W to 250W - the LED Monitor also runs at half the energy of the old one but that whole stuff is now almost 3 Years old - i only changed the CPU (x4 975 -> FX8350) out of curiosity how it would run and the GPU (HD6950 -> R9 280X) for better performance and bcs the 6950 had a bad running loud cooler.

I would be happy if the System can run 3 to 5 more years b4 i do a real performance jump again (i dont feel the urge or curiosity that motivates me to buy a new PC and the performance jumps are not that big compared to the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s).

The only Software that runs to slow is Civ V in the mid/endgame when a round takes minutes to proceed (Marathon, Giant Map Size, 22 Civs).

PS: The last CPU i overclocked was a Dual Core Opteron (something 2xx or so) with ~2,5 GHz 10 years ago on an Asrock Board with a SiS Chipset.
Asrock and Gigabyte be the two Mainboard Manfacturers that never have let me down and both offer long time Bios Support.

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 December 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[Lord Letto]

if your that hard up to save energy, switch to intel: http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350
Reasons:
Lower energy consumption: 71.5W vs 159.66W
Lower annual home energy cost: 21.2 /Year Vs 56.1 $/year

when it comes to cost to purchase, i7 4790K @ Micro Centre for $250 while 8350 is around $170, that's a $80 difference, with energy savings being $34.90 a Year, it would take about 2 and a bit Years to get the price difference back in energy savings

Edited by Lord Letto, 27 December 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Here are two more Fraps run in CW. On the snow map, and a counter attack against falcons. We lost this one, I took top match score with 177, 5 kills, 8 assist, and around 1400 damage.

Once again I find it odd that the only time I see dips into the 20's is when I hit the bench mark button.

Here my results....

2014-12-27 15:07:36 - MWOClient
Frames: 9047 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 50.261 - Min: 31 - Max: 95

2014-12-27 15:25:29 - MWOClient
Frames: 8410 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 46.722 - Min: 22 - Max: 106

[Thorqemada]

Watts Up?

My System as described b4:
Idle = ~90W
MWO Mechlab = ~230W
MWO Faction Map = ~330W (CW is hot stuff - we all know it )
MWO Drop Preparation Screen/Mech Death Screen and Rotating View = ~450W (PGI - you want to burn Hardware do you? - VSync ON does help with that but has a negtive Impact on ingame FPS)
MWO Match = ~350W (Forrest + Viridian)

PS: I would wait to buy a new Sys unil DDR4 RAM has matured and comes at an economical expense.

PPS: To put that in relation the System i had until ~3,5 years ago containing 8GB DDR2 + Phenom 9850 + 2x HD Maxtor 250GB + ATI 4850 + Terratec Soundcard used up Idle ~135W and ~500W in GTA IV where the current Sys is around ~370W.

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 December 2014 - 03:59 PM.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Thorqemada, on 27 December 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Watts Up?

My System as described b4:
Idle = ~90W
MWO Mechlab = ~230W
MWO Faction Map = ~330W (CW is hot stuff - we all know it )
MWO Drop Preparation Screen/Mech Death Screen and Rotating View = ~450W (PGI - you want to burn Hardware do you? - VSync ON does help with that but has a negtive Impact on ingame FPS)
MWO Match = ~350W (Forrest + Viridian)

PS: I would wait to buy a new Sys unil DDR4 RAM has matured and comes at an economical expense.

PPS: To put that in relation the System i had until ~3,5 years ago containing 8GB DDR2 + Phenom 9850 + 2x HD Maxtor 250GB + ATI 4850 + Terratec Soundcard used up Idle ~135W and ~500W in GTA IV where the current Sys is around ~370W.

That AMD card is eating most of your energy. If you ever up for a switch to NVidia, their latest offerings outright kill AMD in power consumption/efficiency scores. My GTX970 is idling @30 degrees Celsius (could be cooler without CPU overlocked which is generating extra heat in the case) AND the fans are completely OFF (new feature implemented in Maxwell architecture.) The fans don't kick in until 60 degrees mark (unless you change the curve yourself). LOL THAT's what I call efficiency. AMD is falling behind badly.

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 27 December 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Lord Letto, on 27 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

if your that hard up to save energy, switch to intel: http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350
Reasons:
Lower energy consumption: 71.5W vs 159.66W
Lower annual home energy cost: 21.2 /Year Vs 56.1 $/year

when it comes to cost to purchase, i7 4790K @ Micro Centre for $250 while 8350 is around $170, that's a $80 difference, with energy savings being $34.90 a Year, it would take about 2 and a bit Years to get the price difference back in energy savings

Going to latest Maxwell NVidia GPU would offer even more power savings. Just compare the latest 'equivalent' video card from NVidia vs. AMD for thermal and noise levels and you will see. Here is a first link that came up when I searched for it.. http://www.hardocp.c...10#.VJ94-xdTC5Q Here is another one from Anandtech.. http://www.anandtech...ew-feat-evga/15 Here is one from another web site.. http://www.trustedre...n-r9-290_Page-4 Note: in Anandtech testing they used a sample that didn't have BIOS quiet feature implemented yet. Pretty much every other manufacturer like MSI are making their video cards completely silent at idle with their fans off and even for EVGA it was only a BIOS tweak away.

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 27 December 2014 - 07:52 PM.

[Catamount]

AMD's GPUs have no significant difference from Nvidias. There is very technically a difference, but it's not a significant difference, and no you can't bring Maxwell into this because AMD hasn't released their competitor to Maxwell.

If you compare, say, the 290 to the 770, however, it's 275 vs 230 watts. In other words, the AMD GPU consumes 19-20% more, on paper, and might hike a total system by 10%, and that's a particularly egregious case. They also have better board partners who design better coolers, even if they dropped the ball on a few reference coolers (hardly relevant since non-reference coolers aren't significantly more expensive)

AMD's competitors to Kepler pack more performance at virtually every pricepoint, more VRAM, have real compute power that Kepler lacks because Nvidia had to lop that off to try to stay caught up with AMD in gaming performance/$ (Kepler's double precision power is just hilariously bad), and this was Nvidia's best showing in a losing battle to catch up with AMD that they've frankly been fighting since the debut of Evergreen! (Okay, Fermi's refresh was pretty darn good, it was just a year late in making Fermi decent and Kepler has sucked balls on just about every point)

Where AMD is lacking is on CPUs. Intel chips are hilariously more efficient, often giving twice the performance or better for a given TDP, as opposed to the GPU differences of maybe 10%-20%. Even a fairly OCed 3570K (Ivy released alongside Piledriver) would have beaten out a stock 8350 by hilarious margins, which is why those chips OC on stock coolers well unless the IHS problem is present.

AMD was not the way to go for someone seeking power efficiency... but it's not as if the fate of the planet rests on some dude's CPU power consumption anyways.

Edited by Catamount, 27 December 2014 - 07:45 PM.

[Thorqemada]

And?

Were are the Intel/Nvidia Numbers?

Input plx

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 December 2014 - 08:23 PM.

[Catamount]

What numbers?

If you're looking for something in particular you need to ask for something in particular

But just about anything can be had here

http://en.wikipedia....orce_700_Series (and Maxwell)
http://en.wikipedia....x_2xx.29_Series

http://ark.intel.com/

http://products.amd....pCPUResult.aspx

Edited by Catamount, 27 December 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[Basskicker]

An interesting video for those who wonder about the true cost of amd over intel as it relates to your yearly power consumption.
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=fBeeGHozSY0

Edit: apologies for the mobile link. Didnt notice it until this morning. Will fix when I get back to my desktop.

Edited by Basskicker, 28 December 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Thorqemada, on 27 December 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

And?

Were are the Intel/Nvidia Numbers?

Input plx

If you are asking about Intel vs. AMD? Here is an example in power savings.. 86W for Intel vs. 160W for AMD.. Source: http://cpuboss.com/c...-vs-AMD-FX-8350 Or did you mean Intel integrated graphics vs. AMD integrated graphics? I know that Intel doesn't make discrete graphics yet.

[Thorqemada]

Game, Set, Match...

[Exarch Levin]

Quote

If you compare, say, the 290 to the 770, however, it's 275 vs 230 watts. In other words, the AMD GPU consumes 19-20% more, on paper, and might hike a total system by 10%, and that's a particularly egregious case.

In the case of MWO I wonder how much of the difference GPU power consumption would make as my 290 is only sporadically loaded during MWO.

I do wish that Mantle (or the still-quasi-vaporware DX12) were available to MWO as this game strikes me as being the case-in-point for their existence. Thankfully these forums have made it clear that there's no 60 FPS minimum to be had even with the mightiest of Intel tech so I'm not inclined to build a new Intel rig just yet.

[MechWarrior4172571]

Basskicker, on 27 December 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

An interesting video for those who wonder about the true cost of amd over intel as it relates to your yearly power consumption.
http://m.youtube.com...h?v=fBeeGHozSY0

In case the above link doesn't show correctly, here is the correct link..

[Odins Fist]

Other then saying INTEL (CPUs) performs much better then AMD (CPUs), well....
There really isn't much more that needs to be said.

Price this, motherboard that.. Nvidia hit me with a wiffle ball bat...

[MechWarrior4172571]

Odins Fist, on 28 December 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

Other then saying INTEL (CPUs) performs much better then AMD (CPUs), well....
There really isn't much more that needs to be said.

Price this, motherboard that.. Nvidia hit me with a wiffle ball bat...

Yah, that's the bottom line. Nuf said... unless, unless... one is on a budget.

[Kuritaclan]

Problem of the Powersaving Bill Comparision is not the Power consumption @ all. A new System Intel CPU+MoBo+Cooler is performing as good as a AMD Setup on Multithread. What you save buying a AMD CPU you have to invest in good MoBo and Cooler, while a Intel CPU get the same Performance on a cheap Mainboard with the intel stock cooler, and has the power consumption value + have a higher single core performance.

For Example a overclocked FX 8320 (no need to by a 8350 or Above since those are all 8320 which have a higher Coreclock per VID instruction) on a good oc Mobo 150$ and a good air cooler >50$ will perform in Multi threading with 4,8GHz as good as a Xeon 1231v3 for 200$ on B85 mobo for 50$ and a nearly unhearable cooler for ~25$. On IPC the Xeon will outperform the oc'ed FX by factor 1.5. If you going to by a new System there is no point to chose an AMD system with a 4 year old tech, when you can by a intel with ~2 year old tech.

And as mentioned before w8 for skylake with DDR4 coming up 2015. If you wanna built a new rig.

@graphic cards. Maxwell is a better Kepler. The power saving is little to nothing on the new architecture when the card is heavly stressed. Only when the card has not that much to do Maxwell is superior in saving energy over Kepler.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 29 December 2014 - 03:32 AM.