Printable View
No because we are talking about when pushed & that does not mean running a F1 car slower as that's not what it was designed for on a technical level & would be near impossible to drive as smoothly as the RollsRoyce because its built for abrupt speed & breaking & not smoothness. & that the difference maybe between having IMC & not.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
a Roll Royce push hard will never be as abrupt in acceleration & breaking.
That's because an Opteron 165 is extremely slow as compared to current quad-cores. Going from a dual-core C2D to a C2Q is probably not so significant given that a) a C2D is so fast to begin with and b) the C2D is probably heavily overclockedQuote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Sure but tell me one joe avarage that runs into the cpu limit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
They are not converting HD movies, while playing supreme commander and folding in the backgorund. ;)
My parrents have a quadcore and i could swap it for a dualcore and they wouldn't know or feel the difference. :D
For powerusers like you or myself its another thing, as i mentioned eralier in the thread, if i run some CFd simulation i dont want to trade my Ci7 for anything else. The system is more responsive then my other quads at home get the job done faster. :)
if smoothness is subjective then you can't say because a cpu gets a few more frames that it is a better gaming cpu. there are so many different factors and you can't pick and choose the ones you like. the reason why so many people refuse the idea that it could actually be smoother is because there aren't benchmarks or graphs. but if someone could actually make one that made sense and put it up people might actually listen. to me the idea that a cpu can get less frames yet be smoother than another actually makes sense. the tech world is much more complicated than just a bunch of benchmarks graphs and charts. it would be nice if we could find some way to test this in games but if people just keep refusing the idea of it even being possible then nothing gets accomplished. besides im not even saying that amd is smoother. im just saying i have heard it from many respectable people that are neutral and that based on the cpu's design it makes sense. so the reason why people can just shoot down an idea or theory without any proof at all is just beyond me. it almost seems like these days theres two intel sections. and one of them is the amd bashing section. :shakes:
And the major difference besides the speed on the i7 is the memory system that AMD had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And CPUs are not designed to to be soft and comfortable, but rather to performs tasks as fast as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
The point is constancy not comfort. Comfort is one of the by products of constancy.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
A bulldozer will constancy drive through wall after wall with out slowing down but an F1 car will not & because of the design difference of the 2 even slowing down the F1 car to bulldozer speed will not help the F1 to get through the wall.
Well if the issue is the Intel CPU doesn't run as smooth, it should be more apparent in a CPU-limited scenario and not when the CPU is twiddling its thumb waiting for the GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
If that's the cause of the "smoothness", then it's a simple fix to get an Intel CPU to run as smooth. Just underclock it by 40%.Quote:
but they do show a little bit that the phenom 9850 doesn't have as many dramatic changes which should give a smoother effect.
You misinterpret the WIC chart, VSYNC is not set all. Just the chart Y-axis cuts at 60FPS. The QX9650 running at 2.5GHz is so strong that it virtually never drops below 60 FPS while the Phenom 9850 has two areas where it drops to 30fps.Quote:
and the wic one doesn't work at all because v sync is on.
The difference is a bull dozer and a F1 car aren't designed for the same application, unlike x86 compatible CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
i don't know how underclocking would make it any smoother. and if the chart just cuts of a 60 fps then i don't know how it can be a representation at all. what i am trying to say here is if you have something running at a constant 60 fps and something that runs at 70 fps with dips to 60 fps every once and awhile the one running 60 fps would look smoother because the rate doesn't change. your eyes are used to the fps being the exact same and when it changes they will notice. im working on trying to find a way to test this but the problem is i don't have many games.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
The the design between CPUs are different that approach the handling differently otherwise there would be no difference in performance at the same clock speed between any program & given that fact who's to say that speed is the only possible difference from one design to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Because that would be saying that there can only be one difference between multiple designs that have a common purpose. CRT LCD Plasma have more than one difference between each design but they all have the same purpose.
If the only difference between designs with the same purpose was always only one thing then progress would really be slow, everything has different characteristics beside there purpose & speed .
By underclocking, the frame rate will be lower during CPU limited scenarios thereby resulting in a smaller variance between minimum and maximum frame rates. Much like how there is a smaller variance between the maximum and minimum frame rates of the Phenom.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
And if you actually looked at the chart and statistics, you see useful information. Such as how the C2Q almost always stays over 60fps and only drops momentarily to 53fps, while the Phenom has two significant periods of drops to 30fps.Quote:
and if the chart just cuts of a 60 fps then i don't know how it can be a representation at all.
And the issue is this "Smoothness" is not a benefit, it's a detriment caused by the inferior performance of the "Smoother" CPU.Quote:
what i am trying to say here is if you have something running at a constant 60 fps and something that runs at 70 fps with dips to 60 fps every once and awhile the one running 60 fps would look smoother because the rate doesn't change. your eyes are used to the fps being the exact same and when it changes they will notice. im working on trying to find a way to test this but the problem is i don't have many games.
But that doesn't mean the system is smoother, it just the preception or better it makes the situations more noticable when the gpu becomes the limiting factor. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Most first person shoter can limit the max fps displayed, for the HL2 engien just use max_fps 60 and your limited to 60fps, or use vsync you get the same effect, but also a nasty side effect of vsync is sometimes causes mouse lag.
Hello no!
I'm bored enough and pissed enough already with my internet connection's problems as of yesterday and the fact that I'm going to suffer well until the 7th of Jan with a 50s working net, 20 sec not working, 50 sec working again and loop again.
I'm not willing to read all the posts of this topic, but I've read the first 3 pages.
People seem to be missing one of the most important limiting factors in such multi-tasking scenarios, the Hard Disk Drive aka HDD.
This is where every desktop and even the server grade SAS & "legacy" SCSI HDDs still suck, it's when it comes to multiple random read/writes in a single user and/or multi-user usage.
Don't get confused or angry if someone comes by and tells you "Buy a SSD and talk to me again", because in this case a good ( sorry OCZ Core / Core V2 series, and the rest MLC solutions with the JMicron controller, get lost, you don't belong here ) SSD can make a difference, a big one actually.
The second part and point of my post, that I'm trying to keep short since I have to go real soon is that there's no actual way to test the systems for "smoothness" as some of you call it.
But if you'd really like to "test" this "phenomenon" then the only solution that I can foresee is what people usually call a "blind test".
Build and config 5 AMD Phenom II systems, 5 Intel Core 2 Quad systems, and 5 Intel Core i7 systems with the exact same components ( except the ones that you can't really use, like the motherboard and the RAM in the Core i7 system that needs to be DDR3 ).
Configure the hardware & the software on every system and make sure the settings are the same for each one.
Mix the PCs, and have 10 people test them ( 1 person each time ) and ask them to tell you in the end which CPU is in each system.
I'm sorry... if you were actually making that point it was not something that could be ascertained by reading your posts since you did not actually communicate that concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
And you really should stop playing the i7 -- 8 thread card. It is only a quad core processor. Those 4 added threads don't help as much as many people are advocating.
You are one of the most well known trolls on this forum. Just for your information: I have read all the posts in this thread. But apparently you have not. Either that or you have difficulty understanding the actual discussion... and as such you should NOT be participating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And now you are going to jump into your ridiculous taste example in an attempt to derail the thread even more. You really don't have a clue do you? Let me refresh your memory. WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUBJECTIVE THINGS THAT CAN NOT BE MEASURED. Does that help you? (I'm sure it didn't help because you have shown the concept is beyond your comprehension.)
I wish we had a moderator to keep trolls like you and the Zucker out of our threads.
Its not about better..its about smoother & a constant frame rate is smoother than a highly fluctuating one & we are not taking about the possible side effect of obtaining smooth fps through cap or sync.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
The smoothness could be because of the design & not because of its performance in speed because the definition of performance is not limited to speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
The problem is that most people only focus on its speed & nothing else & that's ok but that does not mean that everyone must only care about that if the characteristics of a slower design handles curtain aspects better then its not a detriment of the design but a positive by product of the design as the speed is the limitation of the design & not the purpose of the design to limit speed.
So you could say that its an inferior design when it comes to overall speed, because you cant say its inferior design when it comes everything as there would have to be no links able to show the design doing better ant anything.
The Althlon was an inferior design to the P4 when it came to obtaining high GHz but overall the Althlon was the better design unless GHz iwas a priority & not speed in computation.
No one here is saying that the Intel is not the faster design, WE ALL know that. but that does not mean the design is better at everything some people want to find out & some don't & those that don't are not forced to be here.
I personally don't care if its smoother or not but im not going to stop others from trying to find out nether do i like others trying to stop them.
i thought about that but its too expensive to actually try. if you already have a bunch of computers with each cpu it could be done and instead of them naming the cpu they could just say which one looks "smoother". but no matter what the results are people will argue it because they will say its opinion based or that they changed up the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
one thing that is nice is that fraps will log when every frame is recieved in milliseconds. the frame number at the 1000 millisecond mark would be the fps at that time. you can then look at the difference in time between each frame received until you hit the 1000 millisecond mark. if the difference between the time received of the frames are all the same then it should look smooth. but if they are all rates and the fps is the same as the one with the frames coming at the same rate then it won't look as smooth. if someone can find a way to test this where the cpus would have an equal amount of fps throughout then it might be able to be tested.
@keithlm hornet isn't trolling btw.
But its what happens, just look at the max/min fps for Phenom/C2, they are sometimes huge on the C2 and not as high on the Phenom. Meaning that Phenom is limiting the graphics card eralier then a C2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
If smoothness in games steams from that huge discrepancies between max and min fps, then its possible to optain the same smoothness on both systems with a simple checkbox and all that discussion was pointless.
Cause you optain exactly that, a smooth constant fps distribution, if you limit the fps to a ceratin maximum.
No, let me help you,Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
You try to quantify something that is in the so called "eye of the beholder" aka subjective preception.
Why do you think theres such a huge debate about what fps rate is visible to the human eye or can be seen etc. and what not...
This is exactly the same.
Again what data do you want to use, that isn't already there?
We have fps (outlines over time) max/min avg. yet they give no clue about whats smoother and whats not.
Just look at the graphs accord99 linked to, according to some theories in this thread the INTEL quadcore should be smoother then then the AMD quad.
The only thing so far you have suggested so far is to run a benchmark and then run several other activities in the background and see who does better.
That dont addresses the so called smoothness, this adresses the multitasking capabilities of a system.
Cause the thing thats always said about smoothness in conjunction with amd rigs is, that this systems are more smooth while daily work/gaming.
I dont think many gamers run havy tasks in the background when they want to game for some hours. So where do these smoother feeling steam from?
A bit OT:
Its funny that you accuse all people of trolling that dont agree with you imidiantly on your goal/opinion. They are people that have had quite some experience with different systems, yet they say things that are simmilar to what i say? All trolls and intel fanboys.... i dont think so.
Oh and please cut that name calling and shouting... you want to keep the thread clean and your the only one shouting and calling out pwople trolls...
its not just the min and max its what is happening every single second not just during two different times during the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
if someone with a core 2 could run fraps and record the frames times and run 3d mark 06 it would be nice. then you could see the differences between each frame instead of just the fps values.
It is not about the CPU. It is about the whole platform. No one can measure it. No one can prove it. No one has to believe it.
maybe so but even if it is the whole platform you can't see amd cpus running intel chipsets and intel cpus running amd chipsets. if it comes down to the entire platform you can argue it that way as well that one side would still be smoother. so even if intel gets more fps if amds platform can put it together better and make it look smoother then thats it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Before Throwed or whoever you are come and flame me off, I must tell that my older brother told me that when he switched from 3000+ Barton to 3000+ NewCastle, he told me how the NC was way faster and had no lags anywhere. He said it felt smoother. However, to burst the bubble, I must say that any fresh installation of Windows always feels smooth regardless of hardware. Even old P2 @ 266 feels "smooth" when opening start-menu and MyComputer etc. :shrug:
yes but during games the hdd has way less of an effect than it does during the windows desktop.
This depends on a game and how the memory is being managed.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
In games there isn't much crucial memory transfers(else the mem timings and speed would matter and hugely influence the smoothness, again, it would the platform and not the CPU), thus the IMC can't be used as a reason for smoothness.
Every bench/usage that take advantage of multiple threads shows real numbers for performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Intel implementation of HT on Nehalem/ci7 also shows a clear improvement in scaling compared wiht HT on P4.
This is no subjective "feeling of smoothness" but objective facts.
This is utter BS as this just echoes back to yourself(and others).Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Could it rather be that you want a thread to "discuss" how smooth your favourite systems runs and ban out any poster that dare to disagree?
To disagree and post a message about that is *not* trolling.
Please go back to your starting post in this thread and correct it accordingly if you only want "yay", "+1 posts".
And lastly:
I do not intend to question anyone subjective feelings regarding "smoothness".
They are as real as objective numbers for them.
And I respect that, but please allow discussion/debate in a forum without calling "disbelievers" names.
And when I build my first PHII-rig (920) I will not use it for the smoothness, but for OC and benching. Like always.
If that is "trolling" and Intel fanboism, so be it. :rolleyes:
It's not just smoothness, when i switch back and forth from intel and amd machines, amd rigs feel more responsive. I'm not 100% sure why exactly but it's not just me, lots of other people experience this "phenomena" as well.
snip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Its the difference between the max & min that matters on a system and not how high they are on a system as to the exercise that people are trying to do here & you can only sensibly measure with Vsync off as that is an artificial limitation, how high is irrelevant as that is not the exercise.
Hypothetically speaking If the AMD is pushing 150max 125min fps & the intel is pushing 250max 175min fps then the AMD is producing more constant fps & is statistically smoother the perception is another matter.
If the difference between max and min did not matter but just how high they were then there would be no need for Vsync to exist, your LCD would not try to output at a constant 60hz & fluctuate from 70-100hz at random as higher is better right? & films would not be 25fps or 30fps but fluctuate from 50-100fps at random because higher is more important than consistency?.
Application multi tasking is also important to many & the smoothness in how it handles them.
not necessarily. if one system has just one problem then the min will be set low and won't be a good representation. its more of what is happening in split seconds over the period of the entire trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
http://www.iamxtreme.net/andre/PhenomII/2.jpg phenom II 940 7,150 cpu points 5.4ghz
http://www.pic-upload.de/30.12.08/up6tds.jpg i7 4.1ghz 7,393
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/2281/06go2.jpgQ9650 4.5ghz 7,133
don't for get that AMD Always scores lower on cpu points but higher in graphics scores. scaling isn't always there either with more threads (just one example I could find with close scores. 3dmark06 ain't the best of scaling.)
Thats why the benchmarks/tests should be repeated to make sure no such artifacts remain in the given scope.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
There is no way one can draw any conclusion regarding smoothness from that. Neither can one draw any conclusions from the CPU vs GFX test results since the other(may it be CPU or GFX) is written in a way in which it flavours either AMD K10 or Intel Core ľarch - there is no way to make a "unbiased" test. Look at SuperPI, the way it is written(and ran inside a CPU) (unintentionally)flavours the Intel ľarch. It just happens to run better on Intel parts. It must be - "smoother" there. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
anyone willing to do this?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Why yes. I was the one that kept talking about subjective things long after it was said that we need to find methods to measure this attribute objectively by using scientific methods and experimentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Oh wait... that wasn't me. That was you.
Yet somehow now you've flipped things around and want to now pretend you were not being a troll earlier when you kept doing this and that it is not okay for me to call you out on it. (EDIT: Although that is not the actual reason I call you a troll. I base that opinion on your baited comments as seen in your first post in this thread #42. Although I must admit everyone was ignoring the baited comments until Zucker2k posted.)
To purport that this is all subjective and that there is no way to ascertain any objective measurement and then to stand by that decision without anything other than your opinion is slightly contrary to all scientific methods. To only look at the data available and not attempt to find new methods to test something that appears to be experienced by a multitude of people would also be contrary to scientific principles. To give up before doing anything and ridicule anyone that wants to experiment is vacuous.
If the current data does not fit the model then you need to find new data using new methods. With as many people that talk about this attribute I would not be willing to lightly dismiss it as merely a subjective experience. Therefore the data does not fit the model. So the data must change or the model must change.
so, before the site maintenance, there was only 2 pages, now there's quite a few more...excuse me for not reading them all, but my statement probably isn't related to anyone else's comments.
I've owned two AMD dual core systems but my most recent system is composed of an Intel Q9400 and G45 chipset. I never vigorously overclocked the AMD systems, I used my 4400 X2 at 2.5ghz.
I have to say, the AMD systems, using the same RAM and hard drives, had better desktop response, and I've noticed no subjective difference in gameplay using the Q9400. I'm comparing of course with fresh installs of Vista 64, and each system had a very similar configuration in regards to programs installed, since all of the systems were at one point my main PC. I thought it was a bit of a myth, then again, I wont call it "smoothness", but more consistent responsiveness.
less Lag is a good description.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Hypothetically lets way Intel system is like a Turbo which is faster than a Supercharger AMD system.
But you can get Turbo lag under curtain conditions where as the Supercharger does not.
What people are asking, whether its a fact or not between Intel system & AMD system.
I will leave the rest of you to work that out.
Aint that the point one system has that problem more often than the other Hypothetically.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
maybe but if it is an outlier compared to the rest of the data then it shouldn't be considered. the min and max can paint a picture but it doesn't always come down to that. anyone have any ideas on how to test this idea? i had one idea but i don't have a core 2 to test it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Look at it this way, if there was actualy a way to show this with proof AMD would have used it in there marketing. The fact that they have not used this as a marketing point tells me we will not find a way to bench this smoothness.
Its a point the majority don't care about so no point in AMD making a point about it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
if amd actually advertised maybe we would hear about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
Results 1 - 50 of about 104,000 for amd smoother than intel. (0.23 seconds)
Well :shrug:
Prolly cause both could max out your video card. Using a 4870x2 things prolly would have been noticeable when ones bottlenecking way before the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
edit: Actually, nvm. I also now agree this is pointless. I have made my decision to use the hardware that I choose based upon extensive personal experience, and that's that.
You're missing that the CPU Test is a totally different usage scenario from the Graphics Tests in 3D Mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Having equal CPU Scores doesn't make the performance of the CPU's equal in the Graphics Tests that are using less resources of the CPU and are coded differently.
;)
This is the only way to "test" this theory/phenomenon out.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
However it is indeed hard to obtain all that hardware ( unless you can borrow it from a retailer/shop/manufacturer ), and of course raise the "testees".
I thought of doing that in the past, but the people who claimed that their AMD systems were smoother than the Intel based ones of their friends suddenly refused to participate in the blind test the last day before I decided to go and pickup the stuff.
p.s. If you're going to compare desktop "smoothness/responsiveness" like the Start Menu for example, then you need to make sure that both systems have the same Start Menu appearance delay, and other stuff too.
And no, keithlm, Hornet331 IS NOT trolling and surely not a troll ;)
Actually i dont think you would need that much hardware, 3 or 4 computers with 2 dualcores (amd/intel) and 2 quadcores (amd/intel) maybe a third intel quad (Ci7) and then let people test it one after another. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
But i think the outcome would be simmilar to the Mojave Experiment from MS. ;)
If you have made up your mind about a thing, even if its only subconsciously, there will be a "difference". :)
Thanks for posting screenies demonkevy666. It really give hopes for a good sale of PHII.
:up:
The huge OC-ability for PHII alone is reason enough for buying/building a PHII-rig (for me). :)
But, it is "wrong" to conclude what you do regarding scores when the CPU-clock is that different.
If the Ci7-rig was able to clock to PHII-level you would see a significant boost in GPU-scores also.
That is my experience with lotsa 3DM06-benches.
But I think you're right that AMD rigs/CPU's (K8/K10) scores well in the GPU-benches even though the CPU-score is much lower than a similary OC'ed C2D/C2Q.
We see the same pattern in games also.
my post was about more threads = to more performance. not really about smoothness. the "generic CPU" bench is pretty good to not bias at all, and while I know you made one/postedone I haven't tried it out on my O.C yet (I'm trying to sort out other issues I'm having first before I do.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I've got to the conclusion that the phenom graphic scores are all part of the clock speed(be it gpu or cpu It don't know) after reading a few threads about 3dmark06. but this don't change the fact Tony's Q9650 was getting lower scores in graphics to and equal clocked phenom 9850 and an 8800 ultra. also if I recall VIA benched there chip using both codes and the AMD code was far below then intel code for 3dmark06. It seem strange that there would be any real reason to change coding for a cpu unless you run it a 64 bit problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I'd love to know why no one uses an SSD with phenom ??? no one bench with it at all ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
sure cpu point are going to vary, but when I bench 3dmark I have to turn off all the back ground task that I don't need and bingo added 300 more points to my cpu. of coruse I'm using vitsa 64 bit so I'm already 400 behind.
Most part of your post doesn't seem to make any sense mate.The second part at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
The tests that you are referring to were done on PC Mark04 or PC Mark05 ( can't recall which one for sure, I think it was 05 ) and it was a comparison between Intel's Atom and Via's Nano CPUs, and they changed the CPU string to make the program think that it's another CPU and that probably triggered different routines/optimizations and/or instruction-sets to be used.
There are several benchmarks in the soon to be released Clock per Clock review from HWbox.gr, and 3D Mark06 is included, and there are direct comparisons of both Phenom I vs Phenom II and Phenom II vs the competition ( Kentsfield, Yorkfield, Bloomfield )
My first CPU was Athlon XP 1600+ (1400 mhz), the next one was Celeron D336 (2800 mhz). When I was running iTunes and then starting some other task, the music would jerk and become repetitive for a few seconds. I remember that surprised me at the time since I couldn't remember something like that on my old Athlon. On the other hand I don't remember if I used the same version of the software or not, with the time iTunes was becoming more and more of a resourse hog.
Still on the Celeron :) now choosing between Q9550 and P2 940.
Like I said, this whole thread is epic fail, in my opinion... Everytime the thread starter hits a brick wall on his arguments, he starts calling people trolls.:down:
Talking about low FPS, you can check this very interesting article from many moons ago.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/$500_gaming_pc_upgrade/page7.asp
The average FPS all looks similar until you see the minimum FPS in the table down the page! :yepp: I call this real "smoothness" data... :D
since how most people like you are either avoiding the topics we are saying and then trying to say that we are saying different things i see this thread as pointless now. all it is is people trying to find out how to test for smoothness and then intel fanboys posting stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. so theres no point to post anymore just to let you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
I've been doing smoothness tests on the console platforms for some time. Here's a comparison of Call of Duty 4 running on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and an HD compilation of the clips here.
The methodology is to capture digitally lossless outputs of the HDMI ports of the consoles (DVI would work equally as well), then count the number of duplicate frames to ascertain true frame rate. The dump is then used to generate a graph which is overlaid over the original video. Here's the same thing done with Tomb Raider Underworld on console.
The only limitations with this methodology come down to the 'limitations' of the capture technology - I can capture 1920x1200 at up to 60fps. That would probably be sufficient for testing out this smoothness theory, but alas I have no access to AMD boards or CPUs. If someone from AMD wants to front up the tech and put these smoothness claims to the test, I'd happily carry out whatever tests are required - I do have a range of graphics cards up to and including GTX295.
did you do the Tomb Raider Underworld on console comparison between 320 and PS3?
Yes. I mentioned that video because it demonstrates quite nicely what I think the point is that people are trying to make. A smoother framerate is basically a smoother image on-screen, but crucially, dropped frames mean less feedback from the system from your input, meaning choppier controls and a less satisfying experience.
In the case of Tomb Raider though, PS3 version runs at 1280x720, while the Xbox 360 code runs 1024x576 upscaled to 720p, which explains how it maintains the solid 30fps.
The only other limitation of this technology concerns games where you lose v-lock. I can measure when a game outputs a torn frame, and include that on the graph, but I can't measure where on the screen the tear is. To illustrate a comparison of non v-locked games, here's console FarCry 2. A vertical line represents a torn frame.
But I'm guessing that most people prefer v-lock active. I know I would based on the amount of cash a decent graphics card costs.
The point is that this methodology would work equally well in testing the smoothness claims being attributed to the new AMD chip.
Fanboyism isn't a club exclusive to AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Anyway, I think this picture I made should explain things better:
http://apokalipse.googlepages.com/fps-time.PNG
the fps on the left is probably higher on average. but it's very rough, and you're probably not going to have fun playing through it.
The one on the right, however, is quite smooth, and highly playable.
and thats the idea of how it should be tested. we need 2 systems that get the same average fps and maybe even the same min and max. one needs to be a core 2 duo and one needs to be a phenom system. then you get fraps and make it record the frame times in some game or something(needs to be decided on) and then you get the frame times and calculate the differences between the times and graph it. a perfectly straight line is the best possible situation. i don't have the systems to test so we need to find someone that does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
I think you guys might be on to something... I wonder if Chew* would be interested in doing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
i said it and a few others said it multiple times in the other thread but you could most likely not see it because everyone is arguing for no reason. i would be interested in the results but i can't personally test it.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
I know, that's why I was wondering if Chew* would, he has to systems that he was going to do a comparison with. He could add this into the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
yea xcept he would have to make the systems equal performance. and i bet even if the phenom one is smoother ppl will cry that its a q6600. its worth a try tho if he is up for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
As I've said, I can run these tests with no problem at any resolution up to 1920x1200. The results require no benchmarking tools and are 100% based upon the actual output of the DVI/HDMI port of the GPU. I've never dealt with AMD before - I work with the console companies for the most part - but if someone wants to put them in touch with me, I can do the comparison and put this to rest once and for all. The alternative is to basically keep on arguing about subjective perceptions and prove nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Apokalipse
its funny grandmaster, the last 6 posts just totaly ignore your solution to the whole issue, even to the point where Apokalipse draws a graph, by hand of what you have already done in real time to many games.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmaster
this is so funny, talk about seeing only what you want to see :rofl:
ohhh yeah lets get chew* to do it, and ignore a guy who does this kind of thing for a living, the wonderful chew* can do it so much better than you all and this guy ehh?
this is in no way any disrepect to chew*, no more the attitude here in this post.
the guy can provide a visual test bed for all to see, but doesnt have some kit needed, he has all the graphics cards but needs some AMD boards and Chips.
what we should be doing is trying to 'pull' our contacts here, and getting this guy some bench gear, so he can put this to bed for us all, and PROVE that an AMD gaming system is 'smoother' than Intel.
surely AMD would be happy to bag this claim, with all test for all to see? also done independly, so nothing to take AMD to court for?
and if you missed what the guy is saying, heres his video comparison between Xbox 360 and PS3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=IL&h...0TPY_-s&fmt=22
cmon Macci, and all the insider AMD lads, get this guy some kit, you would think nothing about trashing with some LN2 :up:
ahhh i never even saw grandmasters post. well if you are up for it go for it. what exactly are you doing tho to test it?
The methodology is very simple and is explained in post #152.
To go into more depth.. DVI/HDMI output a pure digital signal. I get a byte-for-byte dump of the port. I can then digitally analyse every single frame, and the software tells me the percentage difference between one frame and the next. Where a frame is identical to the last, that is a dropped frame. A game locked at 30fps (as many console games are) is still outputting 60Hz from its HDMI port, so you would expect every other frame to be 0% different from its predecessor. In the case of Tomb Raider on 360, by and large this is the case.
Due to the competely digital, totally lossless workflow, the results simply can't be argued with and the Tomb Raider video (same gameplay, if not the same actual video being generated) is a clear example of how this can help ascertain what's going on with this particular CPU in that it is showing a rock solid refresh rate (and therefore a similarly solid response from the controls) whereas the PS3 version refreshes very inconsistently in places. I believe this exactly what you guys are saying with regards the AMD chip vs Core 2.
So I'm sitting here with a Core i7 920-based system, a Q6600-based system and I've also got E8400 and Q9300 CPUs along with oodles of DDR2 RAM. I've also got a Radeon 4850, 4870 along with an 8800GT and a GTX295. What I'd need would be an AMD board and the Phenom. If this chip does indeed have the gaming advantage it is alleged to have, my results would be gold dust for AMD, so if they want to put the chip to the test, I'd be willing to do it for free. And yes, I am usually paid for this sort of thing ;) I'd just like to see my tools being used outside the console arena.
yea thats what i was looking for. a q9300 and a 4870 vs a phenom II and a 4870? the two systems would have to be optimized to have the same average fps and maybe even the same min and max if possible. that should give a good comparison. i don't got a spare phenom II or amd board so im not sure how you would get that. if you think it is worth your time tho maybe try the q9300 vs the i7 920 with the same average fps and maybe min/max. the i7 should be smoother than the q9300 which would show that the average fps and min and max are not the only factors to consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmaster
It would be extremely interesting if you could test those CPU's. And if it is possible to select heavy areas in one game (or three) that is single threaded comparing that with how multithreaded games work.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmaster
with a name like grandmaster would you expect anything less :D
That dates back from playing Quake 1 when I used to work in games mags. We'd all vie for victory in lunchtime Quake tournaments and the title of 'the master', but I won so often that the accolade needed an upgrade! :D
Guys,take a look at the first Phenom II AM3 review and the conclusion about the minimum fps(note: min fps is NOT the only thing responsible for "smoothness" of Phenoms,but it plays a part in it):
http://hwt.dk/literaturedetails.aspx?TeaserID=9545
Quoting user Mads321 from news section:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mads321
Quote:
"It is not hard to see that Core i7 is ahead in most of our tests, but it has not proven itself stronger in gaming, where Phenom II actually was ahead in most tests when it comes to minimum FPS; a point which is vital regarding experiencing lag in games. The theoretical performance of the Core i7 is higher, but the question is if you will ever be able to use this extra power as a private consumer. Of course there will always be applications which favour one over the other, and if someone uses an application which is strongly favoured by one of them, the choice has already been made on those grounds, and then the price is not as important. For others we have to assume that value for money plays a big part."
grandmaster, I do hope you get in touch with AMD and get a Phenom II kit for testing purposes. Your method appears to be able to silence all this arguing about smoothness once and for all.
Well I was hoping that AMD might like to contact me but failing that perhaps someone in the know could PM me contact details for AMD, and indeed Intel. Contact names and email addresses for personnel who actually deal with the enthusiast sites, please!