295 replies to this topic

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 19 December 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

Ok bud, I held the 3D MARK DX10 cloudgate world record #1 position for 3 months.......it took custom VRM cooling. lower than ambient air(AC)for room and liquid cooling to hold that position for 3 months.....@ 4960ghz 2600mhz HT+NB BOTH OC'd using GSKILL sniper DDR3 @ 2000+mhz with tightened OC timings......with a ZOTAC AMP GTX 760 OC'd +60core for 1220mhz and +300 for 7000mhz GDDR5 and couldnt come close to these performance numbers that Wired has thrown up here.......Just take your things and walk away. I love amd and will stand my ground but this is sad.

How do you mean regarding the numbers he threw up here? I am a bit confused as to how he got the 177 fps other then the drop screen or starting the drop mode with the details of the map. Did he count his highs off those?

Second, while it is great that you seem to know your stuff about over clocking, that is awesome... but If you are basing claims of a bench mark software and not off of people playing the game with the given system, what does anything you just told us about your experience have to do with the topic?

What does loving Amd have to do with anything? If a game is very playable at High settings on a decent rig, Amd or Intel, what difference does it make? Why the sales pitch about Intel in the message that was brought into the other threads regarding issues, or builds in general? Why the statement that all Amd's processors are a gimp to a player if they choose to go with Amd? Its laughable really, as I play this game quite often, and the last time I was up in Chicago at Micro center off Odgen St. I picked up my hardware for my current build.

I am an experienced system builder, and gamer, I went with my current system over a Intel build. I could of gone either way, but after careful research, I went Amd. No issues to date or regret for going with what I did that day I bought all my new shiny hardware. If I for one second thought I was gimping myself with a FX-8350, I never would of bought it in the first place.

What I find funny is that it has been stated or claimed that Intel is the only way to go with out having to mod your config. files, overclock the hell out of it, or turn down the settings. Well the Irony of that claim looking at the OP's post here. Guess that says it all. You guys can carry on now

[Smokeyjedi]

Just face the facts that no 8350 can put up these numbers here.....It just doesnt have the Compute power.......Look this term up....it will come in handy. The IPC throughput just isnt there for MWO...........Intel can barely deal with it.........Im pretty sure were done here.......MWO is like Thors hammer. Only the chosen one can lift it(HOLD VSYNC @60)..........the 5690X Oc'd into ludicrous 4.5ghz territory/

**edit** just because you dont notice a drop from 70FPS to 25FPS ( IDK maybe u have cataracts?) doesnt mean it didnt happen/

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 19 December 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 19 December 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

Just face the facts that no 8350 can put up these numbers here.....It just doesnt have the Compute power.......Look this term up....it will come in handy. The IPC throughput just isnt there for MWO...........Intel can barely deal with it.........Im pretty sure were done here.......MWO is like Thors hammer. Only the chosen one can lift it..........the 5690X Oc'd into ludicrous 4.5ghz territory/

**edit** just because you dont notice a drop from 70FPS to 25FPS ( IDK maybe u have cataracts?) doesnt mean it didnt happen/

I agree, there is a difference in power between his 12 threaded death machine and any other out there. However, what does that processor alone go for? That is kinda an extreme example in what one would need for any game out, don't your think? Point is that as long as I am at about 40-75 fps, I am all good, and I think that many players would be fine with that fps in any game they play. There are Amd rigs that are very capable of handling this, with out tweaks or mods of Config. files or jumping through hoops to do it. If that rig of his is such a bad a$$ death machine, and yet he is still having problems with the fps issues feeling like somethings wrong? Yep, maybe he should upgrade that thing, to the next best that is out from Intel, that should fix the problem. Have fun guys sorting it out, I will be playing nice and smooth on my rig

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 19 December 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

I agree, there is a difference in power between his 12 threaded death machine and any other out there. However, what does that processor alone go for? That is kinda an extreme example in what one would need for any game out, don't your think? Point is that as long as I am at about 40-75 fps, I am all good, and I think that many players would be fine with that fps in any game they play. There are Amd rigs that are very capable of handling this, with out tweaks or mods of Config. files or jumping through hoops to do it. If that rig of his is such a bad a$$ death machine, and yet he is still having problems with the fps issues feeling like somethings wrong? Yep, maybe he should upgrade that thing, to the next best that is out from Intel, that should fix the problem. Have fun guys sorting it out, I will be playing nice and smooth on my rig

but thats just the thing. You wont prove this 40FPS minimum that you "claim" And I know why. Because its fabricated.....You do not get better results from the same processor clocked the same with slower ram.............Just because you think a Hyundai accent is fast......doesnt mean anyone else does........What a thick skull you got there.......the facts just wont go in...............Stop lying here. Find another place to be a numbskull.

I'd benchmark you for pink slips man......with your 1866 DDR.......and your multiplier OC and your untouched base clock and HT and NB........any day any place..........put your numbers up from fraps......................Ill eat them alive......and still not stay above 40FPS in MWO

Do your best and Ill OC higher and get a better avg in MWO..........5.2ghz was the last suicide run in MWO I tried.........didnt like the temps so I backed off. But you sir, deserve complete decimation..........

Edited by Smokeyjedi, 19 December 2014 - 11:04 PM.

[Smokeyjedi]

DO you even 1080P? BRAH?

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 19 December 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

but thats just the thing. You wont prove this 40FPS minimum that you "claim" And I know why. Because its fabricated.....You do not get better results from the same processor clocked the same with slower ram.............Just because you think a Hyundai accent is fast......doesnt mean anyone else does........What a thick skull you got there.......the facts just wont go in...............Stop lying here. Find another place to be a numbskull.

I'd benchmark you for pink slips man......with your 1866 DDR.......and your multiplier OC and your untouched base clock and HT and NB........any day any place..........put your numbers up from fraps......................Ill eat them alive......and still not stay above 40FPS in MWO

Do your best and Ill OC higher and get a better avg in MWO..........5.2ghz was the last suicide run in MWO I tried.........didnt like the temps so I backed off. But you sir, deserve complete decimation..........

The only lying going on is the claim that a person going amd is gimped from the gate with MWO. Its simply false, get over the false claim Intel is the only choice for high end gamers. Amd does have choice to meet this role, they may not synthetic benchmark as well.....but are more then able to provide very respectable game play. I have not lied about my fps rates, what would be the point to do so?

No offense here, but you seem to be the OC god.... Maybe you are, maybe you are not.... who cares. I know I don't, gave up spending thousands of dollars just to get the best benchmark score, Its a pipe dream guys, wake up from it, Intel has you.

I find it laughable that those who claimed that ALL Amd rigs are gimped out the gate, told others not to go with them, are having the very same issues that they claimed a Amd builder would have. I would of never even replied to the claim, but I think many players have enough to worry about with the prices of things in life, let alone trying to get the chase the highest benchmark score mindset. Somebody had to inject a brief reality check into the claims made, guess I was one of the only to do it, oh well, so be it. Proceed

Na bro.... I don't 1080P to put more stress on the CPU, instead of the GPU.... to do meaning less benchmarks, but I do 1920x1200 in 16:10 bra...

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 11:21 PM.

[Flapdrol]

Bill Lumbar, on 19 December 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

The only lying going on is the claim that a person going amd is gimped from the gate with MWO. Its simply false, get over the false claim Intel is the only choice for high end gamers. Amd does have choice to meet this role, they may not synthetic benchmark as well.....but are more then able to provide very respectable game play. I have not lied about my fps rates, what would be the point to do so?

Amd does fine in synthetics, as they usually scale to all the cores pretty well. Problem is games that don't scale well to many cores, like mwo, unfortunately.

in battlefield it's fine


in fsx it isn't


Many forum members have logged their fps in the 12v12 fights, and intel haswells get a 50% higher minimum fps. ~35 fps with amd FX, 50 fps with haswell, but you say it's an intel marketing hoax because your gut tells you so.

Edited by Flapdrol, 20 December 2014 - 04:08 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 19 December 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

The only lying going on is the claim that a person going amd is gimped from the gate with MWO. Its simply false, get over the false claim Intel is the only choice for high end gamers. Amd does have choice to meet this role, they may not synthetic benchmark as well.....but are more then able to provide very respectable game play. I have not lied about my fps rates, what would be the point to do so?

No offense here, but you seem to be the OC god.... Maybe you are, maybe you are not.... who cares. I know I don't, gave up spending thousands of dollars just to get the best benchmark score, Its a pipe dream guys, wake up from it, Intel has you.

I find it laughable that those who claimed that ALL Amd rigs are gimped out the gate, told others not to go with them, are having the very same issues that they claimed a Amd builder would have. I would of never even replied to the claim, but I think many players have enough to worry about with the prices of things in life, let alone trying to get the chase the highest benchmark score mindset. Somebody had to inject a brief reality check into the claims made, guess I was one of the only to do it, oh well, so be it. Proceed

Na bro.... I don't 1080P to put more stress on the CPU, instead of the GPU.... to do meaning less benchmarks, but I do 1920x1200 in 16:10 bra...

35FPS in a FPS is a FAIL!
Sorry but you have given your last ounce of credibility up with this constant ignoring of the facts....Or ignorance however you spell it, it is the same thing.
AMD just doesnt have what it takes for MWO. Yes one day it may play a suitable stable framerate above 35FPS when optimization passes are completed and there isnt much left hiding in the code.....


And as for your "My honda is the fastest car around" bullshit, clearly you dont get out much.
Your AMD isnt that fast.....I know its a shame but It takes a massive OC to do what most I5s and I7s can do outta the box.

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 20 December 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

35FPS in a FPS is a FAIL!
Sorry but you have given your last ounce of credibility up with this constant ignoring of the facts....Or ignorance however you spell it, it is the same thing.
AMD just doesnt have what it takes for MWO. Yes one day it may play a suitable stable framerate above 35FPS when optimization passes are completed and there isnt much left hiding in the code.....


And as for your "My honda is the fastest car around" bullshit, clearly you dont get out much.
Your AMD isnt that fast.....I know its a shame but It takes a massive OC to do what most I5s and I7s can do outta the box.

Clearly I have never claimed my rig is the fastest around, check your facts and claims please.

[Smokeyjedi]

Bill Lumbar, on 20 December 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

Clearly I have never claimed my rig is the fastest around, check your facts and claims please.

But you claim to remain above 40FPS @ 5.0ghz...........with stock base clock......and a multilier OC.............I am sorry but your 8350 is the same Architecture as mine is........A stock I7 3770 with no OC will keep above 45FPS................A multiplier Oc'd 8350 wont do that.........

[Bill Lumbar]

Smokeyjedi, on 20 December 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

But you claim to remain above 40FPS @ 5.0ghz...........with stock base clock......and a multilier OC.............I am sorry but your 8350 is the same Architecture as mine is........A stock I7 3770 with no OC will keep above 45FPS................A multiplier Oc'd 8350 wont do that.........

Clearly I did not claim to remain above 40 fps all the time, and if you noticed I said I was seeing similar Fps rates as the OP after the 64 bit client in effect, and the new driver out for my 7970 3b. Notice the OP showed a min. drop at 34 fps, I have seen this kind of drop also, but after the 64 bit client being run, and the new driver, I rarely see below mid 30's now. Why do you assume that I used the easy peasy Multiplier method to OC my FX-8350? Seems to be a lot of claims and assumptions being typed out here. It even seems as if some of you are claiming I am not agreeing that Intel has higher end then Amd when it comes to CPU's.

What I simply can not agree with is the claim that anyone that goes with a decent Amd processor is doomed to modding their Config files, or having to OC to make MWO run decent. I have OC my FX-8350, but at stock speeds it still ran the game as good as can be expected given the fact that this engine is taxing on ALL rigs, and it is simply not optimized to take advantage of current offerings of mid to higher end Cpu's that Intel and Amd offer. Many games are guilty of this, not just this one. That is a fact... once software and games catch up, and they have been behind the ball for many years now, things might truly start to get interesting on the hardware front, till then, we just have piss poor optimized games and synthetic bench marks optimized to one brand or the other and many of them, with the exception of a few really don't mean much in the real world, except for bragging rights by extreme hardware chasers.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 20 December 2014 - 02:09 PM.

[Catamount]

Smokeyjedi, on 20 December 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

But you claim to remain above 40FPS @ 5.0ghz...........with stock base clock......and a multilier OC.............I am sorry but your 8350 is the same Architecture as mine is........A stock I7 3770 with no OC will keep above 45FPS................A multiplier Oc'd 8350 wont do that.........

A stock 3770, or a mildly OCed 3570k, both of which do better than a masively OCed 8350. That's why Bill refuses to post FRAPS runs.

As you say, we're done here.

Bill Lumbar, on 20 December 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

What I simply can not agree with is the claim that anyone that goes with a decent Amd processor is doomed to modding their Config files, or having to OC to make MWO run decent.

If your definition of decent is 35 fps, and getting less performance than Intel users at every pricepoint (even the G3258 out-does many of the FX chips) then sure.

Edited by Catamount, 20 December 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Lol... that has nothing to do with why I haven't posted vids at the moment.

A statement was made by one person leading this topic.... it was claimed that a player is gimping his self if he goes with Any Amd CPU, It was claimed that one would have to OC the hell out of if, and modify config files and turn settings down to have a decent experience in MWO. This is completely false. and by claiming it you are doing the game a dis-service. Please, most understand the difference between Amd and Intel, no need to take it a step further across the fan boy line.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 20 December 2014 - 05:12 PM.

[Catamount]

Bill Lumbar, on 20 December 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

Lol... that has nothing to do with why I haven't posted vids at the moment.

And that's what we call a non sequitur. Fraps runs != videos. Benchmark results are saved numerically in .csv format not as video files.

If you don't even know that, you don't know enough to be in this thread.

[Bill Lumbar]

Ok... I think I know what you are talking about..... you know I used to keep up with the chase the next best thing, getting the highest frames money could buy. About 3 years ago I woke up, and smelled the coffee. If you guys love to get the max frames that you can, that is great, enjoy the very long and repeated chase to get them.

Here is my last four matches played....

2014-12-20 20:26:32 - MWOClient
Frames: 6163 - Time: 71964ms - Avg: 85.640 - Min: 0 - Max: 103 Viridian bog

2014-12-20 20:27:47 - MWOClient
Frames: 10236 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 56.867 - Min: 32 - Max: 82 Mining

2014-12-20 20:32:25 - MWOClient
Frames: 11929 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 66.272 - Min: 0 - Max: 109 Terra Therma

2014-12-20 21:04:10 - MWOClient
Frames: 8662 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 48.122 - Min: 25 - Max: 90 Viridian Bog(game crashed had to restart and rejoin)

2014-12-20 22:42:41 - MWOClient
Frames: 7509 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 41.717 - Min: 29 - Max: 59 Terra Therma
(this match was rather odd, and I have only seen my frames dip below 35 for just a second when I hit the F11 key. As the bench stopped and towards the end of the match and heavy fighting I was showing frames as high as 45-98)


These three are from CW drop, base defend non winter map and all in the same game and different mechs through out the match. 3 min bench/180 second

2014-12-21 00:16:28 - MWOClient
Frames: 7746 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 43.033 - Min: 33 - Max: 58 CW match

2014-12-21 00:23:26 - MWOClient
Frames: 5687 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 31.594 - Min: 20 - Max: 43 CW match

2014-12-21 00:35:21 - MWOClient
Frames: 8684 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 48.244 - Min: 26 - Max: 124 CW match


Here is 4 more from each mech on the winter map, counter attack

2014-12-21 00:35:21 - MWOClient
Frames: 8684 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 48.244 - Min: 26 - Max: 124

2014-12-21 01:11:27 - MWOClient
Frames: 7821 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 43.450 - Min: 31 - Max: 66

2014-12-21 01:16:17 - MWOClient
Frames: 6253 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 34.739 - Min: 24 - Max: 115

2014-12-21 01:22:25 - MWOClient
Frames: 7929 - Time: 180000ms - Avg: 44.050 - Min: 23 - Max: 103


All of my game play seems smooth, other then the normal BS that we all deal with regarding issues with the engine/game.

Not that it means much, but 7/10 pug matches I have taken top match score tonight... hitting as high as 133 in my BJ-X1 8 small pulse lasers. How is my game play gimped by my Amd system? Just wondering again?


Is this what you are looking for?

Setting are as follows 1920x1200

DX11
Motion Blur off
3d vision off
V-sync off
Damage glow on

Effects Very High
Object Detail Very High
particles very high
post processing High
shading high
shadows high
texturing very high
environment high
anti-aliasing post AA

I turned down my FX-8350 to 4530 mhz and my 7970 3gb is not over clocked during these last four games.

What started my comments on this thread and the other one is Goose's disclaimer and warning he puts on ALL Amd systems in regards to playing MWO. What he is claiming is false, and should not be accepted by this community as the "norm" for what to expect when running this game on all Amd systems. I have not had to alter or mod my config files, and right now I am running with a very mild OC to my FX-8350 and stock on my 7970 3gb card. I think some of you have just got me wrong....

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 20 December 2014 - 10:32 PM.

[Bill Lumbar]

Catamount, on 20 December 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

A stock 3770, or a mildly OCed 3570k, both of which do better than a masively OCed 8350. That's why Bill refuses to post FRAPS runs.

As you say, we're done here.



If your definition of decent is 35 fps, and getting less performance than Intel users at every pricepoint (even the G3258 out-does many of the FX chips) then sure.

Its funny you should bring up the G3258, because you can youtube guys running them side by side in games against not only Amd cpu's, but also I5's and I7's and the game play and Fps in many games looks almost dead even. This is of course with the G3258 OC to 4.5-4.7 Ghz vs. Stock FX-3850's and I5's and I7's and running a Nvidia 980 in all rigs, same ram, etc, etc. It is only a $69 dollar CPU, so what does this tell us about most games and software in general that is being run on our systems? Anyone?


Seriously, cut back on the Intel juice guys.

https://www.youtube....e&v=t7aeZ51Tjb0

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 20 December 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[Flapdrol]

We're not talking "many games", we're talking THIS game, and in this game you're better off with the anemic pentium compared to any amd chip, because it only scales well to 2 cores (with settings low-ish). You can blame the code, but that doesn't improve performance.

And nobody is drinking "intel juice", amd's FX cpu's were a massive dissapointment for gamers, in most games the FX8150 was slower than the phenom II x4 and x6, because of reduced per core performance, and those phenom II's were only slightly faster than core2. With the higher uncore and clocks of the x3xx it's a bit faster, but still dissapointing. FX lauched after 2500K, and none of them match the 2500K when it comes to gaming. Competition in the cpu space is dead, the 4790K wastes space on an igp, but is still half the size of an FX, and sells for twice the price.

[Catamount]

Flapdrol has it. Drinking the Intel Juice? I'm such a huge AMD fanboy, especially here, that when I went over to the Star Citizen forums and was giving tech advice in off-topic, I was actually identified by a member of the community over there as "that AMD guy from the MWO forums".

Please, Bill; Spare me.

I had a Phenom II X4 965 (only OCed to 3.6 even on a Titan Fenrir because I lost the silicon lottery ). That's a chip that's only comparable to Nehalem I5s, and it's as good as or better than Bulldozer in gaming, and quite nearly as good as Piledriver. Why would we be spending serious money for Nehalem/K10 level performance?

And don't take our word for it; take AMD's! AMD recognizes their own CMT (clustered mutlithreaded, ie Bulldozer) architecture as such as failure, that they're abandoning the entire design fundamentally for their new architecture in 2016. Their new architecture is still largely under wraps, but has been said be pretty much based on, not Bulldozer/Piledriver, but rather... *drumroll*... K10 and Core. They're going back to making souped up Phenom IIs.
AMD has a killer GPU lineup. Frankly, I think Southern Islands forward beat the living daylights out of Kepler and so far Pirate Island is looking really good against Maxwell on paper. I also think they're very capable of a killer CPU lineup. Intel complacency nothing; AMD won with the Athlon 64 because they were innovative and pioneered integrated memory controllers and the first serious dual-core chips, not to mention the 64-bit standard, beating out Intel's own IA64.

AMD is not the problem here. CMT is the problem, and AMD knows it. When they get their **** together, I'll happily buy more CPUs from them, just as I buy most of my GPUs from them. I'm not, however, going to waste money on lackluster Piledriver chips, not when they have a hard time beating $69 Pentiums. Your own FRAPS numbers show why. The 0 minimum is because you didn't turn it off in time (I do that too), but c'mon, 20-25fps minimums? I get like 35-40 (behind on the last update, could post FRAPS numbers in a bit). Now, sure, you probably don't see lower than 35 either because you're busy or because the refresh on the meter doesn't catch those stutters, but you can still perceive those stutters to 20-25, and my CPU is nearly doubling those minimums. It's not because it's a 3770k, either. My 3570k did just about as well (the HT advantage is proving minimal, barely measurable even), and I really don't "see" my minimums going below like mid 50s, but I've never considered that a reliable test.

Edited by Catamount, 21 December 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[Smokeyjedi]

Last Night for 25 minutes(2.5matches in J7F) I ran my 8350 @ 5.2ghz(260X20)@1.52V - It was awesome......Untill I got a BSOD,-The vrms cant deliver 375+w for more than a few minutes......... I saw no dips of less than 55FPS but I was in a Jenner 7F so I was full throttle and suicidal.............Would like to log fraps counters but that BSOD was because I asked for it. pushing this thing so hard with 8 threads.......(which BTW is only necessary for MWO purposes-Any triple A title will do fine @ 4.5ghz0not suffering 25FPS dips

[xWiredx]

redlance, on 19 December 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

why does the mech community know more about optimization than pgi?

Some of us actually do have jobs where writing, testing, analyzing, and optimizing code is a daily chore. Considering the widespread knowledge and excellent documentation available for the engine PGI is using for MWO, it isn't surprising that some players can come to these types of conclusions.

@Smokey - thanks for calling my box a deathmachine lol - it is a monster. I haven't had time to really break down OCing this thing, so my current stable is only 4.1GhZ, but I've gotten it to do a few tricks at 4.5. I think 4.6 or 4.7 might be the brick wall for this thing, and it will probably require better RAM because of how Haswell-E is set up (and my particular motherboard). Temps under the Corsair H105 dictate that I will really be more limited by the chips capabilities and the motherboard's capabilities than heat, I've never seen temps above 53-54c on any core (tons of breathing room, these chips are good to like 80 or 90).

Bill is that kind of troll that uses the same arguments religious people use against science: I know what is what because I believe it and I don't have to prove anything to anybody. The fact that I see multiple 0fps mins and a lot of other 20s mins tells me right off the bat exactly what we already knew: AMD chips are -decent- for gaming, but in anything that wants a lot of CPU power they will lose a lot of ground to the Intel users.

I will be testing the 32bit vs 64bit client probably on xmas eve/xmas. My guess is that people running cranked settings will see more of a difference, as I think part of the problem was the 32bit client's inability to access more than 4GB of RAM between system RAM and VRAM, and I saw the client use almost 2GB of each in some of my testing. It probably won't be a HUGE difference like some people are reporting (25-50%), but it should at least be a little more smooth and remain more stable over longer play sessions. Maybe a good 5-15% depending on specific scenarios.

I will also be testing using in-game AA settings vs. setting them in the Nvidia control panel. There was some speculation that it helped pretty decently. There will obviously be a lot less test runs between the 2 next tests I am doing. Maybe 2-3 each. I haven't changed my GPU driver or clocks at all, so the only differences will be how the client handles things differently now.