295 replies to this topic

[Lordred]

Some interesting numbers from my logged matches in CW
https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

[xWiredx]

Those are interesting. Taking the HUD out completely seems to do quite a bit for performance. Flash performance is pretty bad no matter how you cut it, but to see it that drastically affect overall game performance is kind of sad. Maybe PGI needs to work on that HUD a little bit.

It also seems that one you get into action your framerates drop pretty hard. Might want to OC that thing a bit more eh?

[Catamount]

I'm with Wired. OC that chip and it'll behave a lot more nicely.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 23 December 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Am I alone at this point in having no idea what position Bill is even trying to argue? It certainly has nothing to do with any topic or statement made on these forums.

Catamount, I think I have made my position very clear on here and in the other threads regarding this topic. Obviously, you and others are blind to it, and it is very related to what Goose tried to claim, and yet you fail to see it. All of you can claim how I am trying to justify one of many CPU purchases made over the last 5 years, Intel and Amd. This is argument is nothing more then that of a fps chaser, and currently would fall under a Intel fan boy Since I have conceded that they are ahead in that race.

However, I have seen many Intel rig owners as well as Amd rig owners, (Kain Thul) for one example of many, and his Intel system:

i7 3930k
ASUS Sabertooth x79
Corsair H100i
32 GB RAM
2 x Gigabyte AMD 7970s
2 x 512 GB SSD
Win 7 64 bit ultimate

This is a rig that should not be seeing dips down into the 20's or stutters or choppy game play. I don't know if Kain is seeing the dip's and they bother him or if its just the simple fact that his fps dip down for a second and goes back up. Either way, his rig, as well as high end Amd rigs should be able to handle this game with High settings and not be seeing dips that low. And yet both systems are seeing it. Now when an Intel user experience's these types of dips, we have a select few that claim, " there must be something wrong with the game, or his system, because a Intel rig of that specs shouldn't be seeing dips like that."

And yet when a Amd rig owner post up those similar dips and numbers... we hear, "Amd FX-8350 sucks for gaming, or ALL Amd processors are way behind Intel CPU's. and they have to be OC'ed like crazy and Config files have to be modded to get them to just start to produce decent, but by a few players standards unplayable fps."

It is no doubt as I have stated before, in benchmarks, Intel CPU's put out higher fps in most games. The fact is that many with a tuned rig, good air flow, proper cooling have no real issues(other then the normal BS that all rigs suffer, even the baddest, besttest, more gooder Intel rigs, because of this games horrid lack of optimizations) and have fairly smooth game play on both Intel and Higher end Amd rigs.

Some of you are on the quest to have the highest fps system money can afford you, that is fine, have fun with that. Every 6 months to a year cycle, Intel/Nvidia/Amd/ATI throws you all out the next best thing, all new and shiny, and comes at a price, often a very hefty one at that. Everyone has a right to purchase what they like, to spend their hard earned money where they like. My point is that some of you take that a step further, and try to bash guys that don't make the same choices you make in their purchase's and try to make your given choice in hardware (Intel in this case) the end all, be all choice for all gaming, and like its a requirement to have in this game to enjoy decent and smooth game play.

As a builder that has built both Intel and Amd rigs for the last 8+ years, I know Amd's short comings, as well as Intel's. At the end of the day I jump on neither band wagon, because I look at my playing experience everyday I play on a given gaming rig I have built. I don't care about the higher fps as long as what I have built produces clean, responsive, 40-80 avg. fps and isn't choppy or suffering from stutters. My FX-8350 rig produces such results, and the bottom line is, I don't have to sell it to others, as it would seem some of you try so hard to "sell" Intel as the only real option to play this game with out pulling ones hair out in frustration.

Wired, It is great that you are running test, and providing them for us all to see. Its interesting to see the numbers and results, but seems to me that we are all getting a very wide range of those numbers and results produced when this game is benched. I had time to only play two games last night.... and I posted the results and explained what had happened on HPG and it was felt by all players in that game. Look at my fps in that match.... something just doesn't add up guys. What about my first match I posted..... I was avg... how many fps 70, and game play was just as smooth when I have seen benches producing a min fps of 20. None of this makes sense in real world playing experience and what I am seeing in games dropped for the last year.

Wired, no matter how many test you run, and the info you put up, with some of the select few, Goose, Catamount, you guys are not doing a service by making some of your claims about FX-8350 series processors, or as Goose claimed, ALL Amd processors. It's really clear here that you all are on the chase for the utmost fps you can get, that is fine, good luck. But you all seem to have to go a step further, and try to claim those of us that have higher end Amd rigs are just blind, and try to tell us just what we are seeing on our rigs, day in and day out of playing this game. And from what I gather, I believe the truth is that You guys are the ones trying to justify your purchase's, some costing way more then what some FX-8350 owners have into their gaming rigs.

This is not doing any justice when discussing this topic, or really good for the game if Intel is the only CPU's that can run it with acceptable fps and smooth game play. I wonder how many gamers on Steam run Mid-Highend Amd rigs... and see what you guys are claiming, making it sound as if we all have choppy, game play filled with micro stutters or just plain stuttering in general. Sorry guys, But from my gaming experience with my rig this is just completely FALSE. You may say I am blind, and I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one.

Seriously guys, get off the Intel Juice, or at the very least take down the Intel stand your selling it from and just keep drinking it yourselves and enjoy your Intel gaming experience. After all it is the best money can buy, right?

Once again... I will copy and paste my results from my only two matches last night... Numbers are looking right on the money from what I claimed my system does regarding avg fps.

Here is my first game played tonight after busting a$$ all day on working on drywall. It was on the moon, a conquest match and it was an Lrm fest right at the start. I have my FX-8350 at 4.9 ghz and mild over clock on the 7970. BTW, I hit the F11 key right as I powered up as you recommended Wired. Ran for 180 seconds, and we was confronted within the first 2 mins by 7 mechs and the Lrms rained. I would of thought that this would of been a low min fps run, but as it turned out, a very respectable min and avg.

2014-12-23 00:44:06 - MWOClient
Frames: 12743 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 70.794 - Min: 46 - Max: 122

I also ran the repair tool for the first time since I downloaded this game in over a year. It said 5 issues needed to be repaired. Don't know if this helped but these are solid numbers for what some of you have claimed to be an under performing rig. Once again I took top match score on my gimped Amd rig, 121 1 kill 8 assist and around 700 damage in my BJ-1X.



Here are two runs from Frozen City I just came off of. Had to use thermal vision. We lost this match, came out with the second high score, ended up with a team kill on a Jager by accident, sorry Killercrow . I think I head shot him with 8 small pulse lasers as he came running past a building, and there was a red box right behind him over laid on his mech. Match was close, ended 12-9

This game was really messed up, for the first 3-4 minutes of the match, it was lagging and lots of stutter? Several players came across in chat and asked if we all was lagging and skipping/warping around, and sure enough most said they was. I didn't ask what kind of rig they was running or specs... but this seemed like a very low frame rate issue or what I would consider poor hardware that isn't up to specs for the game. But the thing was is everyone was experiencing the very same problem at the same time. I wonder, is this fps issue more to do with the games lack of optimization, or just gimped Amd processors?

I Hit the F11 key right as I powered up, let the 3 minute bench go, then hit it again right after. I benched through the stutters we all experienced and these are the results I got from those benches. I lasted around 8 minutes into this match until my right leg exploded from team mates that walked into my BJ over and over. A Victor and a Dire whale.

2014-12-23 01:22:13 - MWOClient
Frames: 9981 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 55.450 - Min: 34 - Max: 108

2014-12-23 01:27:11 - MWOClient
Frames: 10505 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.361 - Min: 34 - Max: 87


How does one explain the wonky first 4 minutes of this match, skips, stutter and warping for all players, yet I was getting a avg of 55 fps, with low dip of 34? Everyone else saw the very same warping, stutters that was in the match. Something is really jacked up here guys, and while Fraps numbers can show a reference as to what fps one gets in game, given the results of other matches playing very smooth on my rig, and seeing dips at 25 fps, yet producing smooth game play for me, seems it is only a reference and has nothing to do with how smooth the game "feels" when playing it. It is only a reference IMO, a tool to trouble shoot if one is having choppy game play, or in this case a tool used for Intel-peens to brag on, Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 23 December 2014 - 11:15 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 23 December 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

Catamount, I think I have made my position very clear on here and in the other threads regarding this topic. Obviously, you and others are blind to it, and it is very related to what Goose tried to claim, and yet you fail to see it. All of you can claim how I am trying to justify one of many CPU purchases made over the last 5 years, Intel and Amd. This is argument is nothing more then that of a fps chaser, and currently would fall under a Intel fan boy Since I have conceded that they are ahead in that race.

However, I have seen many Intel rig owners as well as Amd rig owners, (Kain Thul) for one example of many, and his Intel system:

i7 3930k
ASUS Sabertooth x79
Corsair H100i
32 GB RAM
2 x Gigabyte AMD 7970s
2 x 512 GB SSD
Win 7 64 bit ultimate

This is a rig that should not be seeing dips down into the 20's or stutters or choppy game play. I don't know if Kain is seeing the dip's and they bother him or if its just the simple fact that his fps dip down for a second and goes back up. Either way, his rig, as well as high end Amd rigs should be able to handle this game with High settings and not be seeing dips that low. And yet both systems are seeing it. Now when an Intel user experience's these types of dips, we have a select few that claim, " there must be something wrong with the game, or his system, because a Intel rig of that specs shouldn't be seeing dips like that."

And yet when a Amd rig owner post up those similar dips and numbers... we hear, "Amd FX-8350 sucks for gaming, or ALL Amd processors are way behind Intel CPU's. and they have to be OC'ed like crazy and Config files have to be modded to get them to just start to produce decent, but by a few players standards unplayable fps."

It is no doubt as I have stated before, in benchmarks, Intel CPU's put out higher fps in most games. The fact is that many with a tuned rig, good air flow, proper cooling have no real issues(other then the normal BS that all rigs suffer, even the baddest, besttest, more gooder Intel rigs, because of this games horrid lack of optimizations) and have fairly smooth game play on both Intel and Higher end Amd rigs.

Some of you are on the quest to have the highest fps system money can afford you, that is fine, have fun with that. Every 6 months to a year cycle, Intel/Nvidia/Amd/ATI throws you all out the next best thing, all new and shiny, and comes at a price, often a very hefty one at that. Everyone has a right to purchase what they like, to spend their hard earned money where they like. My point is that some of you take that a step further, and try to bash guys that don't make the same choices you make in their purchase's and try to make your given choice in hardware (Intel in this case) the end all, be all choice for all gaming, and like its a requirement to have in this game to enjoy decent and smooth game play.

As a builder that has built both Intel and Amd rigs for the last 8+ years, I know Amd's short comings, as well as Intel's. At the end of the day I jump on neither band wagon, because I look at my playing experience everyday I play on a given gaming rig I have built. I don't care about the higher fps as long as what I have built produces clean, responsive, 40-80 avg. fps and isn't choppy or suffering from stutters. My FX-8350 rig produces such results, and the bottom line is, I don't have to sell it to others, as it would seem some of you try so hard to "sell" Intel as the only real option to play this game with out pulling ones hair out in frustration.

Wired, It is great that you are running test, and providing them for us all to see. Its interesting to see the numbers and results, but seems to me that we are all getting a very wide range of those numbers and results produced when this game is benched. I had time to only play two games last night.... and I posted the results and explained what had happened on HPG and it was felt by all players in that game. Look at my fps in that match.... something just doesn't add up guys. What about my first match I posted..... I was avg... how many fps 70, and game play was just as smooth when I have seen benches producing a min fps of 20. None of this makes sense in real world playing experience and what I am seeing in games dropped for the last year.

Wired, no matter how many test you run, and the info you put up, with some of the select few, Goose, Catamount, you guys are not doing a service by making some of your claims about FX-8350 series processors, or as Goose claimed, ALL Amd processors. It's really clear here that you all are on the chase for the utmost fps you can get, that is fine, good luck. But you all seem to have to go a step further, and try to claim those of us that have higher end Amd rigs are just blind, and try to tell us just what we are seeing on our rigs, day in and day out of playing this game. And from what I gather, I believe the truth is that You guys are the ones trying to justify your purchase's, some costing way more then what some FX-8350 owners have into their gaming rigs.

This is not doing any justice when discussing this topic, or really good for the game if Intel is the only CPU's that can run it with acceptable fps and smooth game play. I wonder how many gamers on Steam run Mid-Highend Amd rigs... and see what you guys are claiming, making it sound as if we all have choppy, game play filled with micro stutters or just plain stuttering in general. Sorry guys, But from my gaming experience with my rig this is just completely FALSE. You may say I am blind, and I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one.

Seriously guys, get off the Intel Juice, or at the very least take down the Intel stand your selling it from and just keep drinking it yourselves and enjoy your Intel gaming experience. After all it is the best money can buy, right?

Once again... I will copy and paste my results from my only two matches last night... Numbers are looking right on the money from what I claimed my system does regarding avg fps.

Here is my first game played tonight after busting a$$ all day on working on drywall. It was on the moon, a conquest match and it was an Lrm fest right at the start. I have my FX-8350 at 4.9 ghz and mild over clock on the 7970. BTW, I hit the F11 key right as I powered up as you recommended Wired. Ran for 180 seconds, and we was confronted within the first 2 mins by 7 mechs and the Lrms rained. I would of thought that this would of been a low min fps run, but as it turned out, a very respectable min and avg.

2014-12-23 00:44:06 - MWOClient
Frames: 12743 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 70.794 - Min: 46 - Max: 122

I also ran the repair tool for the first time since I downloaded this game in over a year. It said 5 issues needed to be repaired. Don't know if this helped but these are solid numbers for what some of you have claimed to be an under performing rig. Once again I took top match score on my gimped Amd rig, 121 1 kill 8 assist and around 700 damage in my BJ-1X.



Here are two runs from Frozen City I just came off of. Had to use thermal vision. We lost this match, came out with the second high score, ended up with a team kill on a Jager by accident, sorry Killercrow . I think I head shot him with 8 small pulse lasers as he came running past a building, and there was a red box right behind him over laid on his mech. Match was close, ended 12-9

This game was really messed up, for the first 3-4 minutes of the match, it was lagging and lots of stutter? Several players came across in chat and asked if we all was lagging and skipping/warping around, and sure enough most said they was. I didn't ask what kind of rig they was running or specs... but this seemed like a very low frame rate issue or what I would consider poor hardware that isn't up to specs for the game. But the thing was is everyone was experiencing the very same problem at the same time. I wonder, is this fps issue more to do with the games lack of optimization, or just gimped Amd processors?

I Hit the F11 key right as I powered up, let the 3 minute bench go, then hit it again right after. I benched through the stutters we all experienced and these are the results I got from those benches. I lasted around 8 minutes into this match until my right leg exploded from team mates that walked into my BJ over and over. A Victor and a Dire whale.

2014-12-23 01:22:13 - MWOClient
Frames: 9981 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 55.450 - Min: 34 - Max: 108

2014-12-23 01:27:11 - MWOClient
Frames: 10505 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 58.361 - Min: 34 - Max: 87


How does one explain the wonky first 4 minutes of this match, skips, stutter and warping for all players, yet I was getting a avg of 55 fps, with low dip of 34? Everyone else saw the very same warping, stutters that was in the match. Something is really jacked up here guys, and while Fraps numbers can show a reference as to what fps one gets in game, given the results of other matches playing very smooth on my rig, and seeing dips at 25 fps, yet producing smooth game play for me, seems it is only a reference and has nothing to do with how smooth the game "feels" when playing it. It is only a reference IMO, a tool to trouble shoot if one is having choppy game play, or in this case a tool used for Intel-peens to brag on, Nothing more, nothing less.

Man, I Held the #1 position for all people who actually now how to OC thier 8350.....and guess what I was #1 position for ALL 8350s with a GTX760 I got to the top of AMDs 8350 and guess what I was left found wanting. MWO is pretty much the only TITLE i play @ this time.. and for the wattage, heat and noise that my fans make.......Its just not good @ MWO. Could have a quieter, more powerful Intel experience that is easier on the elec bill.

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 23 December 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Man, I Held the #1 position for all people who actually now how to OC thier 8350.....and guess what I was #1 position for ALL 8350s with a GTX760 I got to the top of AMDs 8350 and guess what I was left found wanting. MWO is pretty much the only TITLE i play @ this time.. and for the wattage, heat and noise that my fans make.......Its just not good @ MWO. Could have a quieter, more powerful Intel experience that is easier on the elec bill.

That is great Smokey, congrats on the OC with your 8350. I am sitting at 4.9 ghz and around 1.45 volts on the vcore with mine. I hear very little fan noise on my triple radiator with 120mm fans, if any at all. My 7970 with its very mild OC right now stays at around 55C even while playing this game, I have my fan on it set to 50%, so not much noise coming from it there.

You will not get an argument from me regarding the very last sentence of your post except the quieter part, Intel has nothing to do with being quieter,(ones choice of cooling hardware does though). You are correct and it is factual to state that one will have a more powerful Rig when looking at the benchmarks Intel systems are known to put out, and it will be easier on the electric bill. Those are facts, those really can't be disputed. Their is a difference in opinion and just what a more "powerful experience" really means in real world and it will vary person to person. Some will say the extra fps with the Intel system are "needed" to enjoy the game and smooth game play.

That is a opinion, and not a fact. My FX-8350 affords me both, just at a higher cost to my electric bill...but the funny thing is even that argument has been proven to really not mean much, even though it is a fact. Some where, someone did the numbers on just how much a overclocked FX chip pulls, and used math to show that the difference paid out extra for the FX over the course of 3 years I believe, still didn't amount to the extra cost paid for the Intel CPU's. They based this on the fact that many builders that build gaming rigs, will most likely upgrade their system or build new by the 5 year anyways.

Thank you for at least attempting to take down the Intel Juice selling stand, it is appreciated.

[xWiredx]

So, wait a second... I have an 800MhZ deficit and my system is still faster? Huh. Here I actually thought that 800MhZ was enough to put them on-par.

The statistics show a 20-30% difference, so I'm not sure how you think that smoothness is an opinion. That is something that is measurable. Enjoyment? Sure. Complete opinion. Smoothness? Not opinion.

People really only build systems every 5 years? I refresh mine every 2 years (except this time around, it was 3 years, and I was itching to do it for months). 5 years seems like a long time to me. Guess those are mostly COD players, though. Either way, I can guarantee that my 2600K paid the difference in electricity in those 3 years compared to the Bulldozer chip I could have ended up with instead. The price difference was about $40 when each of them was brand new and I know I've saved more than $1/mo on my electric bill with it.

Obviously this time around I'm not as worried about costs, this was the first time I got to build exactly what I wanted. Am I happy with it? Oh yes. Is it fast as all get-out? Yes. The best part is my electric bill only went up while I was rocking the new chip and 660 TI SLI. Now that I've put the 980 in there the bill is a little lower. Cutting costs ever so slightly, but getting more performance -and- the planet gets to suffer that one iota less. Unfortunately, I need those 12 threads for other things, or I'd have stuck with the Z97 platform.

[Bill Lumbar]

xWiredx, on 23 December 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

So, wait a second... I have an 800MhZ deficit and my system is still faster? Huh. Here I actually thought that 800MhZ was enough to put them on-par.

The statistics show a 20-30% difference, so I'm not sure how you think that smoothness is an opinion. That is something that is measurable. Enjoyment? Sure. Complete opinion. Smoothness? Not opinion.

People really only build systems every 5 years? I refresh mine every 2 years (except this time around, it was 3 years, and I was itching to do it for months). 5 years seems like a long time to me. Guess those are mostly COD players, though. Either way, I can guarantee that my 2600K paid the difference in electricity in those 3 years compared to the Bulldozer chip I could have ended up with instead. The price difference was about $40 when each of them was brand new and I know I've saved more than $1/mo on my electric bill with it.

Obviously this time around I'm not as worried about costs, this was the first time I got to build exactly what I wanted. Am I happy with it? Oh yes. Is it fast as all get-out? Yes. The best part is my electric bill only went up while I was rocking the new chip and 660 TI SLI. Now that I've put the 980 in there the bill is a little lower. Cutting costs ever so slightly, but getting more performance -and- the planet gets to suffer that one iota less. Unfortunately, I need those 12 threads for other things, or I'd have stuck with the Z97 platform.

This isn't about who's system is faster.... if my system performs well under this game, and yours performs faster, who cares? Oh that is right, some of you do. I have sat back and seen claims that just because my rig has shown on the fraps bench marks I have dropped down to the 20's that this means I am experiencing stutters and choppy game play. As I have shown in the Frozen city match numbers and the events that took place in that match, the fraps numbers don't make any sense at all.

I am claiming that I do not see my fraps counter move below 30 fps in matches played, and even if it does dip down for a very brief second, (not 10 seconds as some have claimed) and my game play does not slow down, no stutters, when I turn my torso left to right and fast, I do not feel as if my fps drop. If I zoom in and out, or change over to night or thermal vision, I do not get game play that is not smooth or fluid. Others have claimed that I must be blind if I am not seeing slow downs or stutters, choppy play with these very brief dips in fps when I am not benching and just watching the counter. If I hit the F11 key, I see my rates plunge when I first hit it, down into single digits some times...but that is it. I am very picky on games I play in regards to having hardware in my rig that allows me to play at very high to maxed settings, always have been. I don't dismiss or turn a blind eye to things that lead me to not be happy with a rig I have built. I upgrade or build new if I run into performance issues that don't allow me to crank up the eye candy. I also believe that some of my settings are set to a higher level then some of your rigs.

While smoothness is a matter of opinion that can also be cross referenced with fraps benches, simply as a reference, it is not the end all be all when figuring out how smooth a rig runs. If it is the end all to the topic, how does one explain the match I posted on Frozen city? Something is a muck with the optimization of this game, IMO... not with the top end processors from either brand available to choose from. Sure one produces better numbers, regardless, the other should be more then enough processing power to handle this game, period.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Bill Lumbar, on 23 December 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

This isn't about who's system is faster.... if my system performs well under this game, and yours performs faster, who cares? Oh that is right, some of you do. I have sat back and seen claims that just because my rig has shown on the fraps bench marks I have dropped down to the 20's that this means I am experiencing stutters and choppy game play. As I have shown in the Frozen city match numbers and the events that took place in that match, the fraps numbers don't make any sense at all.

I am claiming that I do not see my fraps counter move below 30 fps in matches played, and even if it does dip down for a very brief second, (not 10 seconds as some have claimed) and my game play does not slow down, no stutters, when I turn my torso left to right and fast, I do not feel as if my fps drop. If I zoom in and out, or change over to night or thermal vision, I do not get game play that is not smooth or fluid. Others have claimed that I must be blind if I am not seeing slow downs or stutters, choppy play with these very brief dips in fps when I am not benching and just watching the counter. If I hit the F11 key, I see my rates plunge when I first hit it, down into single digits some times...but that is it. I am very picky on games I play in regards to having hardware in my rig that allows me to play at very high to maxed settings, always have been. I don't dismiss or turn a blind eye to things that lead me to not be happy with a rig I have built. I upgrade or build new if I run into performance issues that don't allow me to crank up the eye candy. I also believe that some of my settings are set to a higher level then some of your rigs.

While smoothness is a matter of opinion that can also be cross referenced with fraps benches, simply as a reference, it is not the end all be all when figuring out how smooth a rig runs. If it is the end all to the topic, how does one explain the match I posted on Frozen city? Something is a muck with the optimization of this game, IMO... not with the top end processors from either brand available to choose from. Sure one produces better numbers, regardless, the other should be more then enough processing power to handle this game, period.

Run some games with afterburner logging the FPS that will give you an accurate picture as to what is going on throughout the game .

[Bill Lumbar]

DV McKenna, on 23 December 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

Run some games with afterburner logging the FPS that will give you an accurate picture as to what is going on throughout the game .

Maybe I will have to try Afterburner, I used to have it installed on my Q9550 build, but never reinstalled it after building this rig. I used to bench things all the time back in the day... but after almost 4 solid years of doing that and always trying to get the most performance out of whatever hardware I picked, I learned to ease off of the benchmarks, and judge by experience while playing the game. The only time I really go back to benchmarks now a days is if I start to see performance issues with my rig, or when I am OC to find a stable and solid OC. I may be a bit rusty on all the hype of benchmarking now a days, but I came to find that I could spend my time benchmarking, and chasing hardware, or I could build a rig, tweak it and be playing games instead, and enjoying my game play. If I find problems, I don't ignore them, I tweak or if its time, I upgrade or build new. Something is off with the optimization in this game guys... that really is all there is to it.

Here is my first build back in 2008-10 that I built, Amd 6400x2 BE. and my first go at water cooling.... I take my rigs and cooling very seriously! Other two pics are my Second build, and upgrade to a phenom 9850 B.E. needless to say it was better then the first phenoms, but was a mistake to purchase. I sold it off and went to a Phenom II 940 B.E. and was very happy with that processor for two years.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 23 December 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[Flapdrol]

Afterburner is quite nice, makes graphs like this:

[Exarch Levin]

Out of curiosity, what program would I use to log the clock speeds for each of the 8 CPU cores on my 8350?

I've done the "AMD Free OC" to 4.4 GHz and disabled CnQ, Turbo and the hated APM but I'm still seeing times in the game when my GPU usage (and clock speed; R9 290) really drops and my FPS drops with it.

CPU-Z only reports a single speed. It also reports that, even though APM is off, my multiplier can range from 7 to 22 and I'm concerned that it is while playing MWO.

[Goose]

HWiNFO

[Claviger]

Why do people insist on thinking a AMD ANYTHING can even hold a candle to an intel Hex/Oct EE processor that is overclocked?

Take your AMD Super mega ultra octo 6 ghz monster. 3960x @ 4.5 ghz still destroys it, in every measurable test except a few useless zip file tests lol.

Get over it, you bought inferior hardware and saved yourself between 300-800 dollars. Be happy you saved, but don't seriously think the Construction Equipment AMD line can hold a candle to Sandy Bridge - E, Ivy Bridge - E, or Haswell - E. It cannot, will not, ever, never, ever till the end of time.

Also, thinking your 7970 + AMD Octo can even touch a Hex Intel + 980 is laughable, and you sir are a joke because you seem to seriously think it can lulz.

Not hearsay, I have owned both systems, 8350 at release at a stable 5.1ghz and currently my 3960x with a power saving 4.5ghz but its stable to a touch over 5 ghz. The AMD stuff is inferior, period.

Exact same systems full load power draw both using ASUS ROG boards:

8350 @ 5.1, both 7950s full load - 890 watts
3960 @ 4.9, both 7950s full load - 670 watts

Edited by Claviger, 23 December 2014 - 05:36 PM.

[Exarch Levin]

Quote

Why do people insist on thinking a AMD ANYTHING can even hold a candle to an intel Hex/Oct EE processor that is overclocked?

I'm not sure that people are thinking that, at least not here: I'm concerned that I'm not getting the maximum performance out of my 8350 due to power/heat issues as the 8350 should be more than enough CPU to handle MWO in conjunction with my beast of a GPU.

TBH, the GPU utilization shouldn't be dropping off during the game, but yet it does and no CPU core is ever maxed out for me.
Thanks to that HWiNFO program I have confirmed that all 8 cores never go below 4399 MHz during gameplay, and no core is ever above 90% utilization (sadly this game is heavy on the STP).

GPU-Z reports that my GPU core clock goes from <600 to 1030 (max) during gameplay and voltages, amperages and wattage are all across the board during gameplay, the latter making jumps of 60 or more within 0.5 seconds. GPU load is also pegged at the menus (which are low demand) but can be as low as 0 during gameplay, yet my 8350 does appear to be more than capable of stoking it.

So I'm thinking now that I've either:
a.) got a lemon GPU
b.) can't pump enough power to the GPU
c.) Cryengine/MWO just won't play nice with my hardware

Edited by Exarch Levin, 23 December 2014 - 06:59 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Claviger, on 23 December 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Why do people insist on thinking a AMD ANYTHING can even hold a candle to an intel Hex/Oct EE processor that is overclocked?

Take your AMD Super mega ultra octo 6 ghz monster. 3960x @ 4.5 ghz still destroys it, in every measurable test except a few useless zip file tests lol.

Get over it, you bought inferior hardware and saved yourself between 300-800 dollars. Be happy you saved, but don't seriously think the Construction Equipment AMD line can hold a candle to Sandy Bridge - E, Ivy Bridge - E, or Haswell - E. It cannot, will not, ever, never, ever till the end of time.

Also, thinking your 7970 + AMD Octo can even touch a Hex Intel + 980 is laughable, and you sir are a joke because you seem to seriously think it can lulz.

Not hearsay, I have owned both systems, 8350 at release at a stable 5.1ghz and currently my 3960x with a power saving 4.5ghz but its stable to a touch over 5 ghz. The AMD stuff is inferior, period.

Exact same systems full load power draw both using ASUS ROG boards:

8350 @ 5.1, both 7950s full load - 890 watts
3960 @ 4.9, both 7950s full load - 670 watts

Please tell me who here has claimed that? Not me.... might help to quote a person to make it clear on who you are claiming has. You talk about power savings, but yet you crossfire?

[Goose]

The GPU drops off 'cause the CPU (ca_thread0Affinity in particular,) is starving it …

[Catamount]

Good Lord, Bill. I really do think there's no limit to how much you can type without saying anything.

At this point you've literally moved the goal post so far it's "I don't care if my build is inferior for the money, because I've subjectively decided that performance doesn't matter"

Beyond that, you haven't even expressed a position, let alone back one. See how I reiterated that position in 19 words? It shouldn't take you 19 paragraphs to say the same thing.

If that's the only position you wish to state, well, good for you. I'm genuinely happy for you.

Edited by Catamount, 23 December 2014 - 08:10 PM.

[Exarch Levin]

Goose, on 23 December 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

The GPU drops off 'cause the CPU (ca_thread0Affinity in particular,) is starving it …

That's the go-to answer but I keep expecting at least 1 core to be at 100% utilization if that's the case and even at stock clocks I'm still not seeing max utilization.

Frustratingly, when I spectate my FPS is almost always very high and the visuals are fluid-no momentary lag or stuttering-which should mean that the CPU is capable of pushing the rendering commands to the GPU. This really perplexes me for, AFAIK, when spectating my PC still actively renders everything that I am seeing; it isn't like watching a video stream.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 23 December 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Good Lord, Bill. I really do think there's no limit to how much you can type without saying anything.

At this point you've literally moved the goal post so far it's "I don't care if my build is inferior for the money, because I've subjectively decided that performance doesn't matter"

Beyond that, you haven't even expressed a position, let alone back one. See how I reiterated that position in 19 words? It shouldn't take you 19 paragraphs to say the same thing.

If that's the only position you wish to state, well, good for you. I'm genuinely happy for you.

Cata, you used to be a Amd fanboy, is that Right?