Printable View
The blind test AMD and HardOCP did involved no multi gpu system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
And while they used the integrated Gpu with the low end rigs they used the same Gpu for the "proper" Pc, so if there was micro stuttering involved it would have had to come from somewhere else than the Gpu.
Maybe there is a difference in frame time rendering between AMD and Intel systems like Tech Report now accounts for in their tests:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/22192/11
http://techreport.com/r.x/radeon-hd-7970/bf3-99th.gif
With the GPU the results are consistent, the GPU with a higher FPS score takes less time to render a frame.
But with AMD there is NO consistency, they are saying the CPU that produces lower FPS is smoother.
How AMD marketing works:
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/812...2011ver1by.png
Have you tried turning off hyper threading on your Sandy? Seems to help a lot in some games (BF3 for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom128
this could be true, i have seen a few posts on the EA forum where users are complaining of slight stutering and asking for a fix for bf3.Quote:
Originally Posted by dstedman
but this has still been reported even when turning off HT?
If the minimum FPS is well below 60, you could run into laggyville...I had this with BF3, Vsync onQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Let people play a game without knowing the used hardware parts. They will prolly not feel much difference, if they feel anything at all... but there's more to life than just pure FPS numbers in games... but to me it feels another way of disguising how the product performs versus another one...
i think a more interesting test would be to take those 2 same systems, but with 3 groups of testers
one group is given a blind test
another they list out the specs of the machines
and the last they reverse the listed specs
then see what people say.
+1 We need more data!Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Maybe this test isn't perfect, but it's a start. Hopefully we'll see more of these tests in the near future, maybe even with ABX testing.
Benchmarks gets boring in the long run. Yes they are needed, but I'd like to hear the impressions from users, and not only FPS count.
lol :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
If there is any stutter it will not be MicroStutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
oh boy here we go again... and seeing who posted I am not surprised at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
You know that this would help both systems right? Especial when we have such cases:
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?im...hfNV81X2wuZ2lm
Guess which on of the two will be "smoother"... but yeah its so unethical, illogical and shady to actually want to suggest a level playing field... well I'll be damned. Guess its intels fault that there cpu can spit out more fps in none gpu limited scenes and gets hit harder if gpu limit kicks back in..
But if you think AMD doesnt suffer from this take a look at this (even if its is SLI)...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...mance_review/5
Quote:
With GeForce GTX 580 SLI this game mimics what we saw in DiRT 3. Average performance is very close between the two CPUs. However, the big difference is an inconsistency in performance similar to what we experienced in ARMA 2. So while the performance is similar, the smoothness and consistency is certainly better with the Intel 2500K.
Maxfps is not the same as vsync. With vsync on it always tries to run at 60fps, if it fails to it runs at 30fps stable and so on and often this makes it worse then vsync off. maxfps just sets an upper celling at a certain fps rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
What you eliminate with this is the huge fps drops lets say going form 120fps to 40fps and then back up to 90fps. Instead you go 60-40-60.
Just look at the Hardocp pic I linked at imagine everything cut off above the green 60fps line.
This occasion there a new review :ROTF:
SkyrimQuote:
Our goal today is to find out how the latest ecosystem improvements help AMD's early-adopting customers. We're going to test with the benchmarks we normally run, too, and not the hand-picked titles AMD is using to illustrate the gains enabled by Microsoft's new patches.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/N/S/323...l/image007.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/N/T/323...l/image008.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/6/323...l/image024.png
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,3119.html
skyrim is very single threaded limited. patch it for multithreading first and then watch it be gpu limited
Those AMD "benchmarks" pretty much reminds me their first Zacate benchmark vs. core i5 (with really old intel's driver w/o working Direct2D acceleration)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...-Core-i5/page2
I would not be surprised if they gently "tuned" intel setup.
^
I like this Tim guy :D
This is the only warning: those not constructively contributing to this thread from this point on will be receiving vacations and/or restricted forum access.
Actually its not. Skyrim puts load on every possible physical core, it just uses the main thread more (about 80%), and every other core to around 20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
BD should perform better than a 2500k because it has 4 more cores offloading so much strain.
I would have liked to have taken such a smoothness test too, and also 130 people is a very small sample number. Id probably have noticed that neither system was as smooth as my own tbh, I see so many people whining about lag and microstutter which has never been an issue for me.
curiosity makes me want to build a BD rig for the heck of it; see if I notice anything.
Guys...relax. We talking here about eyefinity resolution, not about standart resolution. I think, BF3 is good example for comparsion. 2600K+hyperthreading (8 logical cores, 4 threads Ok, 4 weak). Its only theory but BF3 scaling up to quadcores. In high resolution (special eyfinity) are diference smaller and smaller with single GPU card. If they compared 2600k and 8150 FX, maybe there was no diference in eyes between XX FPS at AMD FX and XX FPS at 2600k. But there could be some "lags" between jumping loading threads. And FX threads are more balanced than core vs hyperthreading unit.
maybe you need to re-read the thread title: " AMD's smoothness factor put to the test by AMDQuote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
it's like you walk into a GM showroom & the sales rep says: "GM make the best cars in the world" :rolleyes:
it almost doesn't matter if it is smoother or not, the biased-ness instantly voids the results :yepp:
& I also find it odd that you mention agendas given what you have written in light of your sig
here is something I would bet on, that AMD fan-boi's would hate: Intel could run a similar test.. whack in a 2700 or 3930 vs a duron-8150, 2x8GB each (keeps things in dual channel), one high end v.card & an SSD.......... then run the same test............. AMD rig 'wins' in 'smoothness'.......... Intel publishes results that show against them........ & still win in sales :lol: oh sure, it doesn't affect me, just saying.. it could be done.. & Intel would still be $$ ahead regardless, kinda ironic :hrhr:
+1 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
let's make it happen! :D
Intel 2600k = $249.99Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
Intel 2500k = $179.99
AMD FX8150 = $259.99
AMD FX8120 = $199.99
hmm.... I don't know why anyone would buy an FX over the cheaper (and faster) Intel chips right now.
I think, there is real problem (as AMD fan)...FX 8150 is expensive, think, real price could be better about 189$-199, FX 8120 example 169$
Yup, this is the real issue honestly. I haven't paid attention in a while, but the AMD's I thought were always a bit cheaper. I don't know how they think they can justify their pricing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
They must be reeeeeaaaaalllllyyyyy smooth!
that makes no sense. if one core is used 80%, and a second is used 20%, then if you add 2 more cores its not going to be 80/20/20/20 it would have to be 40/20/20/20 meaning you could get the same framerate with half the mhz, which is simply no where near true.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
on my 2500k i see one core maxed out, and the second core using about 10%, and the rest untouched, at 4.7ghz.
Given your posting history it is predictable that you would not see anything at all wrong with changing the configuration to get results you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
There is no way that changing the configuration to get the results you want is the same thing as "leveling the playing fields" and you utterly fail at trying to justify the action you advocate.
PLUS: You can't have it both ways. If you are going to benchmark without vsync and post those results and then advocate that for a different type of benchmark that vsync should be used then you are trying to have the best of both worlds. The answer is NO... hypocrisy in benchmarking is not allowed. One way or the other. Not both. If you want to use vsync then that is acceptable. However it must then be turned on for all benchmarks or your results are tainted.
In truth the only thing wrong with this type of benchmark is that we need more data, different games and applications, and multiple "events" to obtain data.
Well this is with Skyrim running on my PC:
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/278/dsc00162ch.jpg
Its definitely using every core, if only a little bit. I wouldnt call it a single threaded application.
Considering you pretty much ignored or just trying to revers the thing I have said, I wonder why I am replying to that post...Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Well I just say that... I haven't suggest to use vsync at all.... because vsync is horrible... and I haven't suggest to use maxfps on only one system, because it helps all system... and thats where I stop correcting you because else the list would be way to long... and its not worth the effort and I have better things to do then trying to get this thing through to hardcore amd fanboys...
The thread in jumping between coresQuote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
That's windows scheduler bouncing threads across all 12 SMT "cores". In reality you have 6 core CPU with 32% utilization rate(or 12 threads which are 16% utilized- if you would have disabled SMT/HT task manager would show ~30-32% utilization on 6 cores). This means that Skyrim spawns 1.92 threads or to put it in different terms : is dual threaded application. Some of this percentage goes into other processes in windows so Skyrim doesn't even fully utilize 2 (physical) coresQuote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
You cannot use Windows task manager to see how load is being spread, I run applications that are definitely single threaded, and it shows up as using 25% on each core of a quad, instead of 100% on a single core.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
How do you measure user experience alone? Obviously not with benchmarks, no matter if AMD or HardOCP cheated or not. (I used to think HardOCP/Kyle were Intel fanboys or something...)
I'd maybe consider the X8 if it wasn't so hot running, But it's not a viable alternative for ITX anyway so I wait for iBridge.
Well this thread is jumping to conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
oh well, maybe AMD is trying to show that CPU is entirely not important for gaming here :D, just get a budget CPU, overclock a little and couple with a high performance GPU and no one can tell that you have a budget CPU in your system.
A 2600k is $320 and a 2500k is $230...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Okay so you didn't say vsync. Let me quote exactly what you said: "Repeat this test with fps caped at 60 and ppl can't tell anything."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Most knowledgeable people know that usually the only way to do that is to turn on vsync. Some games might allow you to manually set a max fps; but that is very not common. But regardless of whether it is vsync or setting a game parameter to cap the FPS it is the same issue: You are advocating changing a system configuration to get the results that you want to see.
What's next? Are you going to advocate individually optimizing systems for every different benchmark run instead of using the same configuration for all tests? (This is acceptable as long as you are not doing comparisons against other systems; if you are then you can't do it.)
In the past when it was suggested that we disable hyperthreading and/or disable turbo features to get a straight baseline set of results we had Intel fabs screaming at the top of their lungs that doing that was not acceptable; even when it was suggested that sets of test with them enabled also be presented. At this point in time we need to continue using the same set of guidelines they demanded.
That is exactly what they are doing. They are showing that the misguided opinion that "AMD can't compete" is old, tired, and not accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krizby87
even on sale at Microcenter the 2600k is still $279.99.
the microcenter sale price for the 2500k is $179.99
so... yes, lets compare sale prices to regular prices. that's totally fair...:rolleyes:
Why dont' you ask mr. hardforum himself why he's not running amd CPU for smoothness, lol...
AMD thinks, we can't beat Intel so lets try some brainwashing with smooothness, hahahaha, what a joke...
Kinda the same thing AMD did didn't it? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by defect9
-PB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom128
Tokyo price
Intel 2700k = $260
Intel 2600k = $231
Intel 2500k = $169
AMD FX8150 = $250
AMD FX8120 = $169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
fix it for ya, not really sure where your getting your prices
Interestingly MSI Afterburner allows people to limit FPS without using VSYNC. ASorry for not adding to the thread but I'm going to try this out when I went back home. Never had a need to overclock my graphics card but this is certainly a good thing to use Afterburner for.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom128
Intel 2600k = $249.99
Intel 2500k = $179.99
Did you ever wonder why it's only microcenter who have intel chips so cheap?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
MicroCenter. They always have the best CPU prices and they're only a 15 minute drive from my house.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
oh... and a little advice for ya. Next time you should just ask where the price comes in order to avoid looking foolish. ;)
When I click all I see is : "Our Price: $279.99". 8150 is listed at 259.99 bucks. According to this ,application performance of 8150 is 12% lower than 2600K(on average). Price is 279.99/259.99=1.076 or 7.6% lower. So 8150 needs a price cut of another 4-5% to match application price/performance of 2600K.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
Yeah too bad they are a lot longer away from the majority of people. It's easy to sell a handful of chips on the cheap and get good press on that, so long as the majority buying at best buy/newegg are paying a helluva lot more. The i7 2600k costs $320 to the average person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew LB
This isn't some big conspiracy bro. I simply posted up the prices as they were listed on Microcenter's website. I could care less about whether or not the chips are on sale because all that matters here is how much would each CPU cost me if I were to go buy one. The price is the price and there is nothing unfair about it. Personally, I think you should go buy the chip but tell the sales person you want to pay MSRP instead of the sale price. See how silly that sounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by defect9
I buy processors from them all the time and have never had an issue. Some of my best clocking chips come from MicroCenter.Quote:
Did you ever wonder why it's only microcenter who have intel chips so cheap?
According to this, gaming performance of 8150 is 52% lower than 2500K (on average). Price is 259/179=1.44 or 44% lower. So 8150 needs a price cut of a mere 50-60% to match gaming price/performance of 2500k.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Which indicates to me that the workload of that application is being spread across every core, so multithreading is still working. Even if it doesnt increase performance, if reduces the CPU load on the main core which is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
Most games are like this, they will rarely even utilize 50% of a 2500k. Why is it that in most cases, AMD are significantly slower than Intel, even after all this time and enough opportunity for them to at least make something equivalent? AMD havnt had anything good enough for me since S939, and I dont fall for cheap marketting stunts that try and tell me that a game running at 30 fps on AMD is smoother than a game running at 60 fps on Intel.
The first thing I can assume from the info was that Vsync was off, so frame desyncronization was happening.
I'm not in a position to say anything about AMD FX8150 or FX8120 performance which might make my comment null and most likely void. About three months ago I decided to go the Intel route again, after a couple of years of using AMD.
I do not use my computer for video encoding or decoding or any other productive tasks except maybe assignments or reports for my studies. What my computer is mostly used for is gaming and overclocking. Going from an Phenom II 940 to 955 to 965 to 1090T to 1100T I've noticed very little difference when playing games. All these processors, except for the 940, were running at 4Ghz for everyday gaming. Jumping over to Intel, I got the 2600K and I really enjoy this processors, maybe more so becuase it is running 4.9Ghz for everyday use under custom air cooling.
However, it is really difficult to find the difference between the AMD processors and the 2600K. The only notable difference I found was that after a couple hours of gaming on the 2600K I get stutters and teh only solution seems to be exiting the game and restarting the computer. Now I went from 4GB ram to 8GB ram and now I'm using 16GB ram. I have not gamed for many hours yet to see if the same thing happens with 16GB ram, but this never happened while I was gaming with my AMD setup. Now I might be doing somethig stupid in the setup which causes this, so I won't blame this solely on the 2600K processor. Like I said, I really enjoy the processor, except that I'm struggling to get it over 5.2Ghz, even under DICE. Performance is great when benching, but for everyday use and gaming I won't call this a win for the 2600K.
I made a "downgrade" from a Core 2 Quad Q6700 with a 4850 to a Phenom II X3 720 because of heat/noise and the fact that I had less mouse lag on the menu screen for Fallout 3. Huge improvement. Sure FPS is a little lower, but i swear the average is higher, and there is zero lag. Even on an E8400 at 4.5 GHz I was getting lag. 2+ years later, i'm still rocking the tri core...and the only thing on my mind is an SSD because I'd like things to load a little quicker and could use a reinstall of Windows considering the beating this installation has taken over the past few years.
There is no "main core" in a multi-core CPU. All windows is doing is shuffling the application rapidly from core to core. In my experience, when it starts doing that with a single threaded application, performance actually drops, and power usage goes up. Forcing the affinity to a single core will usually net a performance gain. Before Source went multi-threaded, it could be worth as much as 15-30 FPS in CSS forcing it to a single core.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
I don't see Phenom X4/X6 users having any less gaming "performance" than i5/i7 users. They (hardware.fr) just used lower resolution to bring up CPU difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brice MJ
With highest end gfx card of today, FX is around 16% slower than 2500K in 19x12 resolution according to techpowerup. This is the most common resolution that most gamers use. And as many users of this forum that switched from AMD to intel already told you,there is little to no difference in games with modern CPUs like X6/FX and i5/i7.
Before you post, read the article you quote ...Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...cole-test.htmlQuote:
Indeed we leave aside our beloved resolution 800 * 600 to provide you with scores in 1920 * 1080, while still looking quite heavy scenes that allow us to be limited by the processor performance.
Hardware.fr had choosen multithreaded applications only in order to present the FX on its best day. Regarding games, they selected scenes games (1920X1080) which are more CPU dependant than GPU. FX is between a Q9650 and a QX9770, far from i3-2100 ...
My 8120 @4.0 run skyrim smoother than 2500k @4.5
Both are my pc s
My Pentium 4 run skyrim smoother than 2600k 5.0
By that definition, superpi is also multithreaded and uses every core available....Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
You can not just open taskmanager and look at the cpu usage to properly judge an aplication.
people say stuff like in this thread. but both cpus are so fast I'm super skeptical you can tell a difference. games are held back by the graphics card, and the cpu difference is always small...Quote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
Regarding statter after several hours of gaming, I have found that if the video card reaches high heat, it will produce statter, not the CPU. Several hours of gaming could produce enough heat inside the case to cause that.
Also Intel has speedstep which adjusts the CPU ratio according to load, AMD does not have this feature and shoots the CPU speed from idle speed to full speed, the Intel's SpeedStep can actually impact performance as it tries to guess what frequency is required instead of giving the maximum frequency it can, simply disable this feature in BIOS.
Also regarding original numbers:
System A (Intel Core i7-2700K) better: 40 votes
System B (AMD FX-8150) better: 73 votes
No difference: 28 votes
40 people is quite a big number of people that thought Intel setup was running better.
Yes but 73 people is much much higher number, 82% higher than 40 people to be exact. That's almost double the amount of users who thought intel was smoother,much higher than margin of error.Quote:
Originally Posted by ice_chill
Yes but the total number of people is 141, so about half thought AMD was better, but the fact that the other half didn't think so means the difference isn't blatantly noticeable.
The question is why didn't the other half notice the smoothness.
Isn't this EXACTLY the point AMD are trying to demonstrate to people?Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
Yeah, XYZ benchmark shows a +1,000,000 CPU score better but the CPU can't do anything with it. Looks to me like they are 'trying' to bring some real world perspective to the synthetic benchmarks......and i accept it's to get CPU sales through that.
It's about time someone tried to match how pure benchmarking REALLY matters in real-life scenarios. Don't we all live in the real-world? Obviously not.
What is disappointing is that the sample size wasn't big enough to make people accept the results (or even conclusively disprove the assertion) and focus on the debate of WHY this was the case instead of the debate being centered around 'i don't believe it so it must have been a fix for reasons a, b, or c'.
I'm really interested in why brute force (cos that's what Intel is doing) is better than trying to be 'clever' (cos that's what AMD is doing otherwise they'd have copied Intel). I've got no idea which one is the best but would like to REALLY know why. I want to make INFORMED decisions.
If the surrounding hardware holds back the main components of a PC then other than for the sport of benchmarking why does it matter if i have the absolute top-end CPU for somehting like gaming?
I read the Techpowerup comparison of FX/Nehalem/SB on 7970 with interest because although the percentages difference at the end seemed rather large, when i had gone through the games looking at the FPS differences at the resolution i game at the differences weren't that big and apart from a few games (out of 15) the differences were negligible. Even the synthetic benchamrks were't much different yet at the end we have a 10 and 16 percent difference at the two highest resolutions in an overall 'summary'. I was really shocked at that so re-read it a few times to work out why my initial impression (during reading the article) was shattered by the final figures. These percentages were obviously skewed up by a handful of games that SB liked and FX didn't. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The numbers were correct but the overall impression they left were wrong. I think in a limited way AMD have just proved what Techpowerup found with numbers. Maybe this type of experiment needs to be done more and in a further expansive way to drive PCs and gaming improvements down a better path.
The direction of these debates on here disappoints me because i see too much 'reason to fit hypothesis' statements rather than 'hypothesis drawn form reason' even though we have pages and pages in threads. More real debate please.
It's not like the sample size wasn't "big enough". It's about "by who and how" the test was done. The environment was fully controlled by AMD and who knows what they did there. If such "test" was done by Intel with exact opposite result would you believe it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus
Is one 7970 even enough for 3x1080p screens? According to my research that would get you around 30-50fps depending on detail settings. That is not smooth for a multiplayer 1st person shooter. The CPU didn't even matter there because the 7970 held them both back. For that reason alone the test is bogus.
Just proves no practical difference for the average user.
shows people dont buy with the wallet but their beliefs.
Of course it wasn't big enough.....otherwise people wouldn't be arguing about how it was too low a sample number to be representative. Have you read and understood what people have been writing all over the 'net on this? The sample size was one of the first 'excuses' for dismissing this type of method out of hand. Then you came along and stated one of the other unfounded 'excuses'.....well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
By that rationale, let's dismiss every test and benchmark ever run because we don't really know if anything shady was done by anyone because they fully controlled the evironment in their testing. Sheesh.
Again, we're back to arguing about the sematics of the test (fully controlled by AMD, what they could have done....blah blah blah) rather than whether this sort of testing is ACTUALLY valid. Why aren't you arguing for MORE people to do this sort of thing OPENLY and INDEPENDENTLY?? That way we'll KNOW if this is valid or not. That will tell you whether something shady was done by AMD here.......this is something you actually DO NOT KNOW yet you are so sure of your argument.
We're not really moving the situation on by dismissing things out of hand without some REAL expansive adoption of this sort of testing to generate some knowledge instead of childish, yah-boo arguing.
With the lack of curiosity or rational argument (again) a conspiracy theory with no real grounding to just throw something out there. Please go and look up the word 'debate'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augustus
To argue about any benchmark, first the benchmark must be well defined, must have clear description what and how this benchmark measures and must be done by neutral party. Otherwise you may find a lot of "benchmarks" where iPad is faster then i7-3960X, but what is the point?
Testing party does not have to be neutral, only must have a truthful setup of the equipment (no software tweaks etc) and provide full disclosure of testing data and methodology.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
You dont have to like the results, but you should learn from them and perform your own tests if you think something shady was done. Thats what peer review is for.
Just recently: Dell shows a misleading image quality picture to flog graphics cards
And now AMD is doing similar thing.
This slower, but smoother debate always makes me giggle. We all know Intel make the better CPU's at the moment, so get over it and instead focus on promoting the actually very good and successful RADEON 79xx series of graphics cards
here endeth my rant
John
You can learn nothing from this benchmark. First of all this "benchmark" is not reproducible because it is built on "human opinion" and therefore can be easily rigged w/o any danger to be caught. Second, "human opinion" is not good measure metric because "human opinion" can be easily manipulated - there are a lot of techniques how to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
In the benchmarks that I've done Skyrim doesn't scale past two cores. Don't listen to taskmanager.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Save the game in a cpu limited area, then walk around and record it with fraps benchmarking tool, reload that save and repeat, repeat again. Then go into bios and disable two cores, repeat benchmarking. Tell me if you see any difference, I didn't.
Now if you play with clock speed the difference is massive. You can't tell me that a bulldozer cpu would feel "smoother" in Skyrim, or Fallout New Vegas, or a modded Fallout 3, or a modded Oblivion, or quite a few other games like ARMA 2 for that matter.
Blind experiment
Quote:
...In some disciplines, such as drug testing, blind experiments are considered essential. In other disciplines, blind experiments would be very useful, but they are totally impractical or unethical...
Quote:
A classic example of a single-blind test is the "Pepsi challenge". A marketing person prepares several cups of cola labeled "A" and "B". One set of cups has Pepsi, the others have Coca-Cola. The marketing person knows which soda is in which cup but is not supposed to reveal that information to the subjects. Volunteer subjects are encouraged to try the two cups of soda and polled for which ones they prefer. The problem with a single-blind test like this is the marketing person can give subconscious cues which bias the volunteer, whether or not these were intended. In addition it is possible the marketing person could prepare the separate sodas differently (more ice in one cup, push one cup in front of the volunteer, etc.) which can cause a bias. If the marketing person is employed by the company which is producing the challenge there's always the possibility of a conflict of interests where the marketing person is aware that future income will be based on the results of the test.
human opinion is the final result of all graphics rendering. if somehow amd found a way to get 30fps to feel better than 45, we should actually applaud them (although its probably not that big of a difference between the systems)Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
granted we have no idea how the test was set up, someone a few pages back says it was set up by hardocp i think (point being NOT amd), we cant be sure how things were manipulated.
but to say human opinion means nothing is like calling rasterization a hoax and all games that dont raytrace as con-artists.
Please dont try to pervert what I said. I didn't say that human opinion means nothing. I said that the result of such "blind" test based on human opinion means nothing because human opinion can be easily manipulated (read my prev. post).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Sorry, it's more than that. I can setup the equipment "truthfully", but if I'm not controlling the testing environment, then the results will be suspect. If a booth babe rubs her tits against testers playing one system but not the other during testing, do you think the results might be skewed?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Or there could have been more subtle environmental influences:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6...c9330547_b.jpg
I briefly stuck my head into Eddie Deen's Ranch on Saturday. Believe me, what was happening in there should not be confused with a controlled testing environment.
:)
And once you reach 60 FPS the difference is null and void due to the Monitor not displaying more than 60 FPS anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
Unless you have a 120hz display.Quote:
Originally Posted by naokaji
A KVM switch would have made sense here.
Plenty to learn from it, unless you're a fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
You learn: There is a possibility that your rival is doing something you arent.
You learn: We should test this.
You learn: We should look into using a more correct testing methodology
You learn: Fanboys cry and scream at night when you bother to learn things to make life hard for them.
SMTB: Environment is something that should be disclosed in the testing methodology.
Oh, please... What is the point of all this BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Who cares about old, cheap Pepsi-Co marketing tricks? May be only some really hard fanboys.
Sorry AMD, but this is a new low...
I don't understand how people can be so naive (or perhaps fanbois?). There is no such thing - unmeasurable smoothness. Everything is measurable, even if it has hungered of parameters (ask Apple about that). And AMD has all the resources to measure it and to show the numbers. But instead they went with the cheap marketing action.
BTW, it's not that hard to rig the test - just decrease mouse dpi in drivers - and you're done even if your system has much higher fps.
I dont understand how you can be so naive. I am not saying parlor tricks are ok use, I am only saying that anyone can do any test they please as long as they tell us how it was done so we can tell if they used parlor tricks or not.
YES EVERYTHING IS MEASURABLE, WE WANT TO MEASURE THIS.
I think you need to re-read my posts. I am not defending the specific methodology used by H or AMD, only saying that what was done should be learned from. Is that hard to understand, are you so blind you cant see that?
The only thing to learn here is how to BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
I have a Surprise ;)
http://media.bestofmicro.com/G/N/324.../OC_Skyrim.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2715
give it a read...
I noticed that things felt slower when I upgraded from my 2.6GHz Opteron 165 to a 3.2 - 3.6 Ghz C2d e6400.
I also noticed an increase in snappiness when going to my PII x4 720be.
The Intel systems definitely install things more quickly though.
I'm going to say it's probably something along the lines of this - the intel systems have more raw horse power, the AMD systems have more torque.
To some extent, it doesn't matter a ton though, most people, even enthusiasts have more CPU power than they need. I'm primarily limited by my internet speed, or my own inability to type more quickly.
lol :D.....You are dreaming, manQuote:
Originally Posted by PatRaceTin
intel 2500K processor can kick your amd 8120 processor ass :yepp:
you hear me:cool:
you hear me:cool:
you hear me:cool:
you hear me:cool:
ftfy! :rofl: :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Last Meal
In light of recent events I felt it was necessary to necro this post.
Reviewers are using a new method to review GPUs. Nvidia has created a tool called FCAT that takes a look at how frames are displayed, rather than just what the game engine reports the FPS is. Links describing this in complete detail are below (PCPer has a nice video if you want to be quick about it).
Techreport: http://techreport.com/review/24553/i...-capture-tools
Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6862/f...marking-part-1
PCPer: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...ormance-Testin
I feel the topic of the OP relates to all of this new frame time testing directly. AMD systems may in fact be SMOOTHER than Intel system. I have a Core i7 2600k/Z77 system running crossfire. I can play Battlefield 3 on High at 60 to 120fps....albeit with a ton of stutter/dropped frames/runt frames. My coworker has a measly AMD FX-4100, with the same HD 6850 crossfire on an AMD 970 chipset. His system allows for CrossfireX to be enabled (Crossfire through the chipset/PCIe AND Crossfire cable simultaneously). His system ran only between 30 and 65fps during gameplay but clearly had no stutter/dropped frames/runt frames. At a reported 35fps his system played smoother than mine at 75fps. His 970 chipset was also pushing 1 card at PCIe 2.0 16x and the other at 4x, yet he was still 'smoother'.
This irked me...it irked me enough to necro this thread. AMD systems may very well be smoother in Crossfire configurations given the added features that support crossfire on their chipsets. I urge XS members to please write Techreport, Anandtech, and PCPer to do more testing with AMD systems vs. Intel systems. Reviewers tend to only use Intel systems when doing all testing, but this may not be showing the entire picture (literally). Also let's continue this discussion given this new frame time point of reference and get to the bottom of this on XS.
Thanks folks.
Size doesn't matter in processors either, nor how fast the performance, its all about how you use it and the hands on approach, but only developers get their hands inside that processor ;).
Umm, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
First of all, CrossfireX is just a name for the third generation of Crossfire, signed by switch to ribbon interconnect cables.
Secondly, both Crossfire and SLI heavily rely on PCI-E bus for load balancing.
Pretty sure it works this way (people in the know will correct me if I am wrong):
PCI-E is used to feed cards the data, and for load balancing;
SLI/CF bridge is used for minor stuff, such as synch. purposes and frame buffer swaps.
And cards don't transmit a lot of data between each other directly. Talking to the CPU and RAM is a lot more important and bandwidth intensive.
plus i remember back in the 4870x2 days, that it only had the bandwidth of like a pci-e 1x slot
not much can be done with that.
wouldn't want to use it for the bandwidth, it would compromise latency. best to keep that high way empty.
The CPU bottleneck will separate the AFR frames, while in a GPU bound scenario they'll appear around the same time, which causes the runt frames and makes CF useless in that circumstance. It's no wonder games felt smoother with FX since it was inadvertently fixing the microstutter. ;)