Gotta clue up some Intel peeps.

T

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
Just wanted to let you know BF3 performance relative to single card setups compared with an AMD cpu that was recently released. It's the game I play most these days, might wanna think about these scores b4 u guys come dis AMD threads so often. I don't like explaing the current situation in every thread on AMD subforums so I will put it where you can all see easier, save u guys from telling me their cpus suck for gaming. Obviously doesn't now does it?

BF3-FPS.jpg


Just trying to educate you guys like you did to me so well :) No harm intended we all like [H]ardware and just think this is something we should all know. AMD runs BF3 better than price equivalent Intel when it comes to single cards. That's all peace I'm back to AMD subforums cya there soon. ;) I'm also sure Intel is better in DX9 games from what I've read but in DX11 AMD is great, I play BF3 so only care about DX 11 performance I'm sure u guys play DX11 games too maybe performance in those titles is more important than DX9 and vice versa.

Article http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review...ra-fx-8350-asus-crosshair-v-formula-z-rog/19/
 
I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith in those benchmarks. A quick search for BF3 on FX-8350 returned this other review, in which it makes about zero difference, whether you have an FX-8350 or an i5 3570k

tomshardware.com
 
That benchmark is pretty much the polar opposite of what everyone else on the planet has seen... I'd be very weary.
 
Not counting price, wouldn't a Vishera FX-4300 be more of a direct comparison with the 3570K? Of course an 8 core is going to get more FPS with a muti-threaded game
 
teletran8 said:
Just wanted to let you know BF3 performance relative to single card setups compared with an AMD cpu that was recently released. It's the game I play most these days, might wanna think about these scores b4 u guys come dis AMD threads so often. I don't like explaing the current situation in every thread on AMD subforums so I will put it where you can all see easier, save u guys from telling me their cpus suck for gaming. Obviously doesn't now does it?

BF3-FPS.jpg


Just trying to educate you guys like you did to me so well :) No harm intended we all like [H]ardware and just think this is something we should all know. AMD runs BF3 better than price equivalent Intel when it comes to single cards. That's all peace I'm back to AMD subforums cya there soon. ;) I'm also sure Intel is better in DX9 games from what I've read but in DX11 AMD is great, I play BF3 so only care about DX 11 performance I'm sure u guys play DX11 games too maybe performance in those titles is more important than DX9 and vice versa.

Article http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review...ra-fx-8350-asus-crosshair-v-formula-z-rog/19/
Click to expand...

all benches of bf3
toms
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

tech report
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

legit reviews
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/5/

how the hell did they come out with those numbers?
 
mzs_biteme said:
This is what I care about the most...:

Power-Consumption.jpg


...and that's BEFORE overclocking!!!!
Click to expand...

Ouch.

When fabricating the numbers, did they forget that higher wattage is worse, perhaps?

Though actually, looking around at other reviews, seems power consumption was the one thing they got right.
 
Someones been drinking the red-team koolaide again. silly boi friends don't let Friends buy AMD.
 
Speaking of the FX-8350, I was disappointed in [H] review of that chip. Wasn't very long and didn't really show any modern software comparisons; such as BF3.

Oh well...

Those benchmarks posted by the OP look fake anyway.
 
AthlonX2 said:
Of course an 8 core is going to get more FPS with a muti-threaded game
Click to expand...

In a perfect world.

In reality the heaviest lifting is generally done on the first bunch of threads. You're not really gaining speed if you simply don't have anything worthwhile to parallelize out or that simply isn't the bottleneck any more. That and the unfortunate problem that the heavy stuff doesn't always lend itself too well to threading, at least on PC.

DX11 added a good (in theory) way to parallelize your rendering setup costs... but you're probably shit out of luck if you don't hit the right usage pattern because drivers are still utter shit in that regard for some reason.
 
I'd like to see if a FX-8350 can be delidded like IB. :p
 
The benchmark is supposedly a multiplayer benchmark, but doesn't give any sort of info as to how said benchmarks were obtained. Had they done something fancy like recording their movements while doing a network capture then playing back their movements along side the network capture to make both benchmarking as consistent as possible you'd think they'd have mentioned they went through all that hassle. Likewise had they done a 12 hour marathon on each chip and recorded all the averages you'd think they'd have mentioned that too,

Chances are at best they played a handful of different games on each platform, and then figuring since the AMD chip was supposed to be better than the intel chip they picked the highest AMD and lowest intel, which probably coresponded to that one time on the intel chip they spent as much time as possible in open areas with as many people around them as possible, and on the AMD it corresponded to the one time they hid in the corner of the map staring at a wall.

But the reality of a bad benchmark doesn't fit the OPs world view that AMDs are good for something other than encoding and folding. So gratz @ OP for finding one website out of dozens with reviewers and editors as delusional as he is.
 
Skillz said:
This thread will not end well.
Click to expand...


Probably not.Gaming performance is better with higher IPC/single thread.Idk where teletran8 pulled these benchmarks from or what methodology they used.I am highly skeptical,however;being that FX-series is slower in single-threaded than Deneb/Thuban.I've been running a 775 e8*** and it's noticeably smoother than AMD quads;I wonder if AMD will ever make a better chip now?
 
This has been beat to death before.
BF3 single player benchmarks shows almost no difference between various cpus.
Multiplayer is different and much more cpu dependent. Scroll down in this thread and look at the multiplayer graphs from sweclockers: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1038301887
It's not in English, but the two bars for each cpu represent average and minimum fps.

Extra cores and threads helps a lot in multiplayer. A Thuban or 8150 has about the same minimum framerate as a 2500k, all at stock clocks.

Original sweclockers article: http://www.sweclockers.com/artikel/14650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/5#pagehead


None of this is new. BF3 multiplayer is one area AMD can do well because of more cores/threads.
It doesn't mean AMD if the best overall, or that AMD is the most efficient. It doesn't mean a lot of things really, but if you have a Thuban or 8 core bulldozer you can have a good gaming experience in this game, even in multiplayer.
 
So in reality (welcome back to the surface of earth), Vishera is still significantly slower than SB/IB at hell of a lot more power draw? No thanks, I'll stick with recommending just about any Intel this round over just about any AMD processor. As a long time AMD CPU fan and user, their newest architectures have done nothing but disappoint me.

But hey, at least their GPU's provide some serious bang for the buck these days.
 
tricky0502 said:
all benches of bf3
toms
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html

tech report
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/7

legit reviews
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2055/5/

how the hell did they come out with those numbers?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing they decided to turn defragging by file name on, run a full anti-virus scan, and have folding@home utilize 95% of the GPU to get some of those bogus numbers. I mean that's not even trying. To consider yourself a legit review site with such drastic differences than every other place and offer no reasoning? Yeah, GTFO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top