Wow are you guys seriously getting heated about this stuff? Well, you know what they say about arguing over the internet! :yepp:
Printable View
Wow are you guys seriously getting heated about this stuff? Well, you know what they say about arguing over the internet! :yepp:
This thread is so awesome just because it makes the pathetic truly be pathetic. :ROTF:
Good job guys. :clap:
Wow i read through like half of this thread and gave up, i read this thread a couple hours ago and it had just got to 2 pages and then i come back a little bit ago and it was 6 pages, now it's 9 pages....wanted to see what people were discussing about...my conclusion:
the AMD side of people trying to tell their completely legitimate side of things and happy that AMD is doing something good as they have been in the gutter for awhile now, and:
the Intel side trying to say everything is a hoax, AMD is failure, it will always be failure, and that even if AMD is 10 times faster per clock then Intel is at some point, AMD will SOMEHOW still be a failure and their CPU's will suck horribly, as if Intel is some sort of god
Wow Intel people, get your stuff together and stop trying to justify to yourself why you bought an i7 940/965 or any other massively overpriced CPU from Intel, we don't, intel people don't, and no one cares that you think Intel is god, worship them, and speak of AMD as if they are the devil and that no matter how good they do you'll always be saying it's a hoax....because it's AMD, no one cares, go be religious about your CPU somewhere else
Interesting as a social study and how people are "able" to interprete communication in a certain direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura89
I could easily have written the same "conclution" but instead of puttin' the blame on "people from the dark side" I would say that the most blinded fanbois is from the "not-so-dark side".
BTW:
Just using expressions like "The dark side" sure do disqualify any further arguments from these people. Then we are discussing religion/believers and that has nothing to do with hw/benches/numbers.
Sick. :down:
I will admit to that & many more here, but it was a pre-emptive strike as there is no doubt from experience that they were going to come regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Skim..skim..ignore..skim..read...LOL...Owned... skim :door:
+1:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I mean, it's been known for so long that most likely the use of HT and IMC's are the reason for a slightly smoother experience. i7 is because of that smooth as well.
I wont be saying Ph(II) is smoother than any Intel setup, I cant say because Ive nothing to compare. But the people who did have both pretty much all agreed they noticed the same. Now why would someone with a faster system, skt 775, still say that over a slower system, AM2(+). Obviously it takes rocket science to just accept this rather than naming everyone blinded.
Or as I quoted pretty nicely, it makes the pathetic truly be pathetic. However, their loss, not mine. Just a shame this happens in about any thread:down:
So whats the verdict?? 7 games in total, in 5 Intel and amd are = and in the other 2 AMD ='s smoother.........so whats that? AMD 7 .......Intel 5? or is it AMD 2 Intel 0?
COD
Crysis warhedQuote:
We did not notice any difference in game play quality at either resolution between the platforms after playing through several of the levels. Each platform offered a very smooth and fluid gaming experience. We thought the higher minimum frame rates on the Intel systems would be noticeable during the action scenes in the jungle, but we honestly could not tell the systems apart during testing.
Fallout3Quote:
After playing through the several levels on each platform, we thought the Phenom II 940 offered a better overall gaming experience in this title than the Intel Q9550 based on smoother game play. It is difficult to quantify without a video capture, but player movement and weapon control just seemed to be more precise. Of course, if you have the funds, we would recommend the i7 platform for best possible performance.
Farcry2 i7 showed better results hereQuote:
As far as game play experiences, we noted no differences between the Intel Q9550 and Phenom II 940 platforms. Each one offered a very good experience with minimum frame rates on each platform being acceptable. The amount of LOD adjustments in game was disconcerting at times . When we experienced them, the game stutter was minimized on the i7 setup compared to the other two platforms with CrossFire enabled. All three platforms responded in the same manner with a single card setup. Overall, we would not recommend CrossFire for this game, even overclocking the processors resulted in a minimum improvement in frame rates.
L4DQuote:
When it comes to game play experience and not benchmark tests, all three platforms responded the same at our specified settings. We did not notice any advantages with the improved frame rates that the i7 offers over the other two platforms. However, with the i7 we could change the graphic settings to Very High and increase AA to 4x and still experience very good game play. It was as if nothing changed except now we were looking at the savannahs of Africa in a much better way. These same settings were not always a pleasant experience on the other two platforms during heavy action scenes, but the game remained playable for the most part.
Quote:
Our game play experiences revealed no differences between the three platforms. Although the frame rates were lower with the Phenom II, it just did not matter in this game as minimum frame rates were at 60fps or higher in our tests.
Grid
COHQuote:
Once again, our game play notes indicate there is no difference between the three platforms at our settings. Although frame rates were higher with the i7 in CrossFire mode, there was no appreciable difference in game play quality
Good job AMD!:up:Quote:
Now that we have discussed the numbers, what about game play experience? As we alluded to earlier, the Intel platforms had problems with minimum frame rates throughout testing, not just in the benchmarks, but also during game play in various levels and on-line. We have not nailed it down yet, but we have noticed this problem consistently. In the meantime, the Phenom II X4 940 had rock solid frame rates and offered the smoothest game play experience
The article is quite funny. They go on about "smooth gameplay"
They cant mean Timed demos because those have all concluded that the Intels do tend to do alot better in Min/Avg and Max fps
I can only put it down to them actually playing the games themselves in which case it means the human factor comes into the equation of not following the exact same path or doing the exact same thing.
The last one they say the Phenom II felt smoother yet min fps never dropped below 60fps therefor you wouldnt notice the difference anyway. just like they stated earlier on in the review. They seem to not notice a difference in 9fps in min fps but yet as soon as its a 2fps difference it suddenly "feels" smoother.
The Phenom II certainly seems to be a solid performer but all this "Smoothness" arguement is just a load of crap really. Ive played on Phenom II and C2Q and i dont think either is "Smoother" than the other.
As long as AMD continue to exist and keeping Intel and Nvidia HONEST about the price of their product, I'd be more than happy.
Not everytime AMD can come out with product like Athlon64 and HD4xxx series that beat could Intel and Nvidia.
If you found nothing, it doesnt mean it's crap:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scubar
As Ive said before, if multiple people claim to notice a difference, while the Intel system is certainly faster, then why would they still say so?
It's not like fanboys are going to buy an Intel PC and try that way to proof that AMD is better. It's not something that's dropping out of the sky on a sunny day. Im not claiming you're just crapping around, dont get me wrong, if you didnt notice it, that's possible. I cant even tell if it's true or not since I dont have an Intel system. However to claim it's all rubbish, non-excistant and typical fanboy gibberish (I know you didnt call it that way, others did though), IMO that's showing off some huge ignorance.
As said, whether it's true or not, I wont be able to tell. However I never would call the slower but smoother stuff crap, although, it'
s not an excuse for the eventual lack of performance, if say a PhII system is only pulling 3fps it would be rather weird to come out with the 'but it's smooth!' stuff. Well, you get the point I guess:p:
there are also many people that claim to have seen the yeti/bigfoot/ufos/aliens etc. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
as long as people claim, and dont deliver data or situations where it is reproduceable its nothing but more but a myth.
I wasn't surprised to see this thread explode like it did. It wasn't more than a few months back that we had this same conversation regarding Agena. I think the Intel side has a bull horn that sounds any time there's something AMD for them to stomp all over. heh
My prediction from the first page may now make more sense to you guys:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
I'm still trying to get my head around this. It's not so much the insinuation that AMD is smoother or not, but the accusation that Intel "stutters".
I personally think that's a problem confined to dual-GPU (Xfire or SLI), and not necessarily the platform itself. Because of this, when I hear the accusation I'm seeing less of a logical argument, and more of a partisan mud-slinging instead. There may or may not be proof that AMD is smoother, but where is the proof that Intel stutters?
My friend is on a quad, I'm on an e8400, and my friend is on a e6600. We all upgraded from A64's, and not one of us has had a supposed "clairvoyance" moment of "oh fack, Intel stutters! Fail!"
I would then again have to contradict your statement. I use AMD and Intel systems on a daily basis and have parts from both companies sitting in my closet (more intel than AMD in fact atm), yet still prefer my AMD system for gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
What does that make me?
I try to share my experiences about my AMD SYSTEM in the AMD FORUM and get zerg rushed by a bunch of douches that have already called BS before even considering that there could be some truth to this.
Then I find an article which further confirms my personal experiences, and now instead of "Pure BS, Lies, Fanboy", I get "Ok maybe it did stutter but its because of 26 reasons other than the platform".... what kind of chicken:banana::banana::banana::banana: backstepping argument is that?
People can't open their minds a little and see past a brand logo long enough to consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE, they don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about PC's and how they perform in different situations... sad.
Instead of discussion, we just end up with a thread full of poorly veiled insults, speculation, and braindead intellitubbies trying to pose as intellectuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scubar
Your post is a load of crap.
I love because how YOU didn't notice a difference, all of a sudden that means that nobody else possibly could have... wow. Who died and made you omniscient supreme being?
The several complete intel rigs sitting in my closet and AMD rig sitting on my desk say you are WRONG.
Your argument about 2fps vs. 9fps is meaningless, and can not possibly relate in any way to which game would have stuttering/hitches. Just more derailment to take attention away from the point we have been trying to stay on this whole thread.
I swear, every review site on the entire net could post an article confirming this and you still would somehow find the balls to think that your opinion somehow causes the experiences of hundreds of hardware users and now this review site to vanish and become invalid. :rolleyes:
Oh wait, I think I see a yeti outside...
:rolleyes:
Doesn't mean it has to be less true because people can't prove it. I think the rather large number of people experiencing this shows that there is a possibility this is true. But at the same time, placebo is very effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Also most are saying this is a phenomenon that is experienced at occasions rather than consistent. This makes it harder to research. A double blind test with different platforms would be interesting but I don't think there's that many researchers wanting to spend a couple of millions on investigating the matter which probably would be required.
Gentlemen, all I want to say is this;
Keep it up and someone will be going on an all expense paid vacation of 30 days length..
I hope you understand that I hate banning people but when people insist on bashing one another there is no alternative.
Thanks for reading and don't come screaming when you find your account with the word BANNED on it.
I could say exactely the same thing. Trying to argue over something as petit as this is just immature, you need to chill out and stop taking everything so seriously/personally. Its only a CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
That sums up the whole debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
This thread has gone abit pointless really. The bottom line is that both the AMD Phenom II and the Intel Core2Quad architectures provide solid evenly matched platforms for gaming with.
All we need now is AMD to bring out something to challenge Intels Core i7 platform. Its no use bringing out something thats only challenging an old architecture thats been out for a year and a half.
I have seen a UFO not Bigfoot though but....then again Intel Camp Being Wrong about anything is ....About as Rare as a Bigfoot Sighting At McDonalds now isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Would you clowns leave and grow up and act your age? Whatever that may be.
I have owned both Intel Quads and AMD Quads and even at much lower clock rate on Phenom 9850 BE (2.8ghz) vs Q6600 @3.55ghz the AMD was Smoother and more Fluent in Game Play! So unless you Posers have a Intel Quad System & a AMD Quad System you cannot compare and you opinion means MOOT!
This is the only place that we can discuss this "Smoother" Phenomena and us being right without get Gang Raped could you all please do as Movieman says before you get you asses Banned?
True on the alien/big foot thing. Still it doesnt make sense if they can have their C2Q @ 4Ghz screaming at games but claim the Ph to be smoother anyhow:confused: I dont think it's possible to log in numbers, maybe when fpms is used? Like the micro stuttering on 3870X2's, it took some time before it was able to be shown anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I never could see that:( Everytime I visited I got a message I was banned:p: But not as in a subtitle:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
PS, no need to try and show me though:ROTF: Thx though:up:
Someone said something about "blind testing"... I think this would be REALLY good idea!
For example, HiFi was in some point just benching and benching, who had the flattest frequency response, less distortion and all of that. And all those things were just measured/benched. And then in some point they actually started to LISTEN to the components and the whole point of HiFi started to make more sense. (I have read about this, I think the measuring "madness" was somewhere in the 80's)
I would really like to see some blind testing and little "deeper" analysing... Of the game EXPERIENCE itself... First some blind testing and analysis of few gamers about what each system felt like. And only after that the systems would be really benched.
I remember seeing some sort of review/comparison of Ati/Nvidia cards and drivers. In some test they measured the frame time... and back then Ati had some problems and the frame times were kinda unequal and "bounced" more. Maybe this kind of testing would show the "smoothness" better.
But can stuttering even be monitored with software? How about high speed camera to record game play from a monitor and after recording, analysing the video somehow...? I think the analysing could be done easily with software...
Sorry for bad english or if this sound like random nonsensesness :D
I apologize, I'll tone it down a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
"Hey guys I'm going to tell nearly every person in this thread that they're full of crap but nobody take it personal k?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Scubar
According to that logic, electrical current didn't exist until man constructed the first battery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scubar
At least in part due to folks like yourself who are more interested in telling us how full of crap we all are and feigning surprise when we get offended, instead of actually attempting to explain what happened in the tests quoted in the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scubar
Evidently the words "nope wrong doesn't exist" are more valid than actual experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
No, that is a good post, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meizuman
so what thier saying is that the Phenom II is smoother ya?
i gota agree here, my system is as smooth as smooth peanut butter on a smooth babys bum.
mmm maybe that just sounds wrooong?
you know what i mean smoother than smooth, smoother than you know, the smoothest thing you can find in your living room.
and intels are like sliding down a sandpaper chute naked :ROTF:
and in no way is this a shameless attempt to increase post count :up:
This thread needs to be moderated. Whenever a thread includes a comparison between Intel and AMD its bound to be full of failure.
In which way do you want it moderated?Quote:
Originally Posted by batmang
Closing every thread where a AMD vs Intel comparision is done and published, because we all know that threads like these end in a crap and flame war?
We don't like closing threads just like that (some may think we do), but if no other option is left, then so be it.
I'm sure that many members want to discuss threads like this in a normal, mature way.
Unfortunately, this almost never happens and mods need to step in, closing threads and sending out warnings.
Like MM said, play it nice, make constructive posts and no crapping or flaming.
fraps records the time at which the frames came out to a file.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyc
I may have to fix myself a smoothie, kick back and read this whole thread, for giggles. :D
I like the idea about a blind test. And I love the fact that AMD once again has intel scared. :cool:
a blind test is nice but it can't be used for much. if amd does a blind test and even if 90% say the amd system looks smoother they can't go ranting about ti and start a campaign. its just not enough info. intel fanboys will refuse to believe it and say that it was wrong and in some way like the hdd was bad or something. if we can compare two systems next to each other that have about the same average fps or if the intel has a higher fps yet the amd looks smoother then you can do some tests. i would be interested in seeing fps values at .25 seconds marks.Quote:
Originally Posted by akaBruno
Can someone clarify this for me. The word "smooth" and "smoother" keeps getting thrown around but I have read the whole thread and I must have missed where that was defined? I am running a OC'd i7 920 with two gtx 280's and I haven't seen anything that I would consider "non smooth." Is this something that only appears when there is a sudden huge drop in fps? Or is it something that has to do with minimum frame rates? And is it something that happens more when you are GPU limited or can it happen on any particular setup?
Thanks.
I have all three rigs and to be honest moving from one to the next I really can't feel a difference smoother, rougher, bumpy, round or otherwise.
I'm thinking things are getting blown way out of perspective, they're all going to get the job done give or take.
No, I think there's a certain responsibility from the users as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by batmang
I adapted quite a bit from a few months earlier regarding flaming/trolling. However, Im not innocent, but if things cant stay normal and people crying the same crap post after post without any clue, it's bound to happen :banana::banana::banana::banana: hits the fan for me and obviously other forum members as well. It's almost getting a sport to type A M D before you've some raving phag stabbing in your neck:shakes:
Im not against a healthy discussion, but I ain't tolerating this has to come with stupid remarks as having green glasses, being blind or stuff like in my sig. If it happens once or twice Ill ignore it, but post after post, thread after thread, then people are seriously pushing other members not to respond.
I dont even get wtf threy've to do in AMD threads since it's quite obviously they've no interest in AMD. You wont find me in the Intel section for example, and you might find a very rare post from me in an Intel thread in the news section. Why do I not come there? Because Im not interested, plain and simple. If there's a question from me regarding Intel, I just ask without any stupid comments around that. It's a shame it seems a lot of other people lack this ability, especially since that ability takes no Einstein to work out:rolleyes:
Anyone who's experienced "the smoothness" or lack thereof knows exactly what this article is about. The truth is nobody has done any form of official blind tests, and I guarantee if several sites did you might be surprised with the results. I bet more often then not it comes out equal anyway because at the end of the day we don't play charts, we play games. This should have happened years ago, but damn we love our charts don't we?
They are attempting to "win" by attrition. If they cause people to stop discussion or speculation about AMD then they have "won".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Personally when I'm in the mood to "slum" I go to a different forum that has lower (non-existing) standards and doesn't bother having a separate AMD/Intel section because those members LOVE to dump on anything AMD. But on this forum I wouldn't be stupid enough to go into the Intel section. (And I avoid the news section because they are rampant there also.)
Seeing as i build nearly 150 Intel and 300 to 400 AMD Systems a year ive been using Smoothness as a Distinct difference between my gaming systems since i started using Phenom Quads... Ive been ripped quite a few times on boards for the use of the term... But Its there.. Fact of the matter is Higher Min Frame Rates with less frame drops when running a fully tweaked AMD system will make for a "Smoother" in game exp.
Intel guys come here and combat the AMD guys asking what is "Smooth or Smoothness" I consider smoothness to mean, While im playing "insert game" i see very little jerky moments where i can tell the frames are dropping below 30fps.. If your frames go from 60 to 9.... You notice... You also notice large fluxes from say 30 to 80.. To be honest the fact that Intel system CAN pull higher FPS sometimes hurts it... Going from 30 to 160 LOOKS different then going from say 30 to 60.. You're eye might not notice the difference in those number in real life situations but Monitors react differently. When your frames go from 60 to say 20.. Its Smoother. Now mind you this is not ALWAYS the case. Sometimes AMD drops just as many frames as the Intel Chips do. But i tend to notice far greater FPS Pits on my Intel systems... In my store we have our "Head to Head" center. We have a Q9550 Running along side a Phenom 9950. 8 times out of 10 people will pick my AMD system running the Same game.. On the SAME monitor. with the Same ram Ect. And the same thing i hear time and time again is "Monitor 2 just looks smoother!" Take it for what you will. But if the shoe fits.. This is coming from your Average user coming in and just Playing a game on 2 similar machines... Most of these users are not even aware that there are 2 different chip makers... All they care about is How many GB's the computer has :P When you take the Pepsi Challenge you cant get pissed when people pick Coke. Its also not about what chip is better on paper... a Corvette will get you to work... But when you hit the Pot holes wouldnt you rather have the Buick? :P
You sir have won the best post of the thread award! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
This is the main reason why I always buy AMD/ATI. They keep the yin/yang balance. Not to mention their products usually are cheaper and perform just as good or better than the competition. At the end of the day I will frag all of you anyways!!!!!!!!
wow very insightful post. sums up pretty much everything said in this thread and the head to head thing is interesting too. do you think it is possible to screen record what each one is showing and then replay it just the way it was? because i got to thinking like you said 8/10 times people pick the amd system. what if we recorded 2 different videos posted them in a thread here and users could submit which one they thought was smoother to the op. i wouldn't want a poll as you could see other's votes. but it might be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by *GameOver*
Are there any apps (FRAPS?) that can record a session of gameplay every and each frame and "timestamp" them? (Should be at least a ms resolution...) If this can be done, and every frame is counted and assigned a timestamp, it should be easy to analyze the data by looking time between frames. If there was a stop in flow of frames... it would be shown by a long time between frames. If this "time between frames" data is put into some histogram it should represent the "smoothness" by having the distribution tight and no outliners. Just my thought in this subject... :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by *GameOver*
Perfection.
I don't deal with nearly the amount of systems that you do, but I do build somewhere between 20-30 systems a year using both brands.
Thanks for the post.
Would be interesting to see if this could somehow be documented. You know, put into a chart for those who just must have a chart to look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mara
Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
TBH Not sure if a screen cap would do it.. Making a video at a solid 29 or 30fps would not show too too much. What could be done is i might be able to run an event and record what people say. a CTG AMD Vrs Intel extravaganza :) The only true way i know to even show this at all is to run the systems side by side with unbias eyes (unbias being joe shmoe who knows he likes games but does not care what he runs them on so long as they run)... While 95% of the readers on this board are very smart. A LOT of them are very set in their ways. So a real life head to head is really the only way i can see doing it.. I see a lot people saying they have 3 or 4 systems 1 or 2 of them being either AMD or Intel but are you running the same Ram/Video Card/Monitor? It really make the difference to be as Cookie Cutter as you can when it comes to compairing these sorts of things. Ill see if i cant come up with something... Although a vote here would more then likely have the same result as trying to divide by 0... So maybe this might be a bad idea ;)
about the cause for smoothness.
read somewhere that obviously with the c2q that intercore transfers between the sets of 2 will be slower due to going over the fsb... makes sense logically but might that be the reason for frame dips?
also if that's the case why isn't the i7 any better?
also the fraps Idea seems like something for someone with both a PII and a C2Q to test like Chew.
(back to lurkingmode)
yea i said it earlier and i said it in the smoothness thread. fraps records the time at which the frames come out and you can look at that. first you will need a system that gets the same average fps as another but one looks smoother. also its a pita because since there are so many frames to deal with a one minute bench with an average of 45fps would have 2700 frames.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mara
well if you actually want to set something up then go for it it would be interesting to see. as we all know tho pretty much every other forum has users that read or are registered here. so if there can be some kind of breakthrough on this smoothness thing then it will spread. having a bunch of people blind test it would be interesting for me but it won't close this topic and it will still be a mystery. and the reason why i thought it might be interesting to have 2 videos here and compare them would be because people here who have an opinion would have to choose. you could have people say that comp A(amd system) looks better but these same people are also arguing that smoothness doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by *GameOver*
i7 has an imc and has qpi. core 2 does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfaith
read my Q carefully, it deducts that and asks why while having the integrated mem contr. & quickpath still sees apparent frame dips.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
what I'm basically asking is: if the separate sets of dies connected over the fsb for the C2Q would be an 'architectural' cause for any dips in gameplay *1 and _if_that's_the_case_ why the i7 with the new architecture (imc & qp but not as monolithic'ly' designed as k10 but still) also has this prob....
*1 example for the C2Q being threads / data switching between the 2 sets of dies over the fsb which is slower then within one of the dies...
You know I was thinking, not only is AMD smooth, they are cool as ice. :D
The Phenom II can't even manage to beat out the Q6600 in most cases:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/p...ing/crysis.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/p...ocking/fc2.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/p...ocking/ut3.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...g_8.html#sect0
ok just wow. thanks for trolling. it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and is a completely different site. plus this is just proof why i believe chew should do his comparison of the phenom II and the q6600.
according to the charts you posted, the 920 beats the q6600 in one out of three cases, and ties with it the third.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
so that doesn't really support your claim at all.
in the case in which the q6600 beats the 920, it beats BOTH the intel and the amd 920's.
do people REALLY not understand that you could have a billion frames a second but they could all come in the first 1/2 of the second and the other half has 0fps... its a great average of a billion fps but its gonne have 1/2 second stutters! its not that hard to comprehend i dont think
You find three cases where this is the case, and you call that most? So the guy ran a grand total of 7 tests. I don't think I'll bother with that review, thanks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
limted NB speed to 2.4 ghz maxQuote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
again. even anatech did it. they how ever wanted to get 4.0ghz on the chip but failed in vista sp 64 bit.
however someone made a note that registers in vista 64 bit may not be able to keep up with the cores at that speed.
I think it's just lack of info/knowledge about about how far NB/OC can be pushed and how much of a difference it will make on performance overall. hyper transport OC or HT reference isn't that great unless your using a lock chip, you'll hit a core wall before the NB wall. Why both the 940 then ?
i have said the exact same thing before already. imo theres no more explaining or trying to explain it. if people want to prove this then they need to develop a test or something new. everything has been said and explained already but apparently thats not enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
maybe something that could calculate the amount of milliseconds (?) between each frame or something?
go into fraps and tell it to log frame times. this is what you get.
Wow a whole 1280x1024!.....maybe they should have run the test through s-video on a regular tv.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
How about using a resolution that actually taxes something in the system other than your eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
im not doin the math on all them for the amd & intel tests :p:
I'm not a pro with excel but I have enough know-how to make it do calculations and some charts and stuff, if someone wanted to run these tests with fraps and send me the data from fraps I'd be glad to do some data analysis of it. Maybe fraps data from Chew's testing?
If you knew anything about benchmarking then you would know lower resolution tests use the CPU more and the higher resolutions shift to the GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan7171
Many CPU reviews use lower resolutions benchmarks to show this.
Meaning when you want to show CPU gains you use lower resolution benches.
it can but can you explain why amd tends to do better on higher res than lower res? and when i mean better i mean higher than intel values. nonetheless it has nothing to do with the article or with smoothness.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
i agree, the guy you're quoting has nothing to do with this forum, this is not about who gets higher frame rates at what resolution, it's about:Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Hey, this CPU gets 90fps average in this game, but goes all the way down to 30fps every now and then
While this CPU gets 75fps average, but only goes down to 55fps every now and then
someone wanted the definition of smoothness, there's your smoothness, the difference between lows and highs on many occasions, i mean really, who cares if you get 200fps if every 10 seconds it goes down to 1fps, i wouldn't want to play like that
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=17896754
Maybe someone can ask the Author for that program as it will work out the avg deviation for you from fraps.
The DL links are dead.
New link http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?2moyugibhez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura89
Well thats probably the most intelligent way of putting it by just keeping the logic basic:)
there where already many threads about that topic which came to similar ideas. When in fact the only thing that influences the "smoothness" factor is the difference between max/min fps, then there is a easy fix for the intel system -> limit max. fps or enable vsync.Quote:
Originally Posted by *GameOver*
If that hypothesis would turn out to be true, a intel rig would be sometimes even more smoother cause of the often higher min fps rate then a amd rig or the other way riudn if the amd rig has a higher min fps and the max fps is limited.
Imho its the "smoothness" debate is the same thing as the "they eye cant see more then 30fps" debate. It is based to much on the individual to make a general statment, just like people say they can see the difference between 60fps and 100fps. Maybe some individual can but the majority can't, its the same with audiophiles, play joeavarage a 192kbit/s encoded mp3 and a flac file on a highend headphones, they won't notice the difference, hell maybe they would even say the mp3 sounded better. :p:
well just like said above, there are often cases where the min fps is higher on the intel rig -> enable vsync, limit max. fps and you have the same smoothness as the amd rig, but your artificially limiting your gfx card of showing what power it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura89
But with same/lower min fps for AMD systems this doesn't clarify anything. It's more like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
System A has avg fps of 120 but has min fps at 40 which happens every five seconds.
System B has avg fps 100, has min fps of 35 but this happens every 40 seconds.
System B would probably be a more fluid experience than A. The main issue is, as maany has already stated; fps stability. If a system fluctuates between 50 and 150 fps dropping to 35 sometimes, averaging 120, it will probably be considered more stuttering than a system fluctuating between 50 and 70 fps, dropping occasionally to 35, avg fps at 55. Microstuttering should be a similar thing.
afaik JumpingJack already did show framrate over time with a QX9650 and a P1 9850 on quadfire.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
edit:
just look at that for example:
Company of Heros
http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/756...ps_compare.JPG
Racedriver Grind (done on a 8800 GTX)
http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/701...15SEC_FRAP.JPG
also this smashes the theory that systems behave differently form each other, if a system gets a drop every 30secs the other system also will get a drop every 30sces, when the same situation is played/displayed.
And if you knew anything about benchmarking you would know that using results from a different setup with different settings at a different resolution is totally useless here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
The tests AT did wasnt benchmarking they were actually playing the games using real world resolutions.
You cant say a game felt smoother by watching a benchmark
Doesn't vsync add input lag? I thought I've read that somewhere on here so I don't use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
There's no arguing for the point of "eye can't see more than 30fps" though, the statement is completely wrong, it's not even a matter of 'some people can, some people can't'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Very slight but unless you're playing online it's negligible :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Very interesting graphs, and as a general statement the AMD systems do have less framerate variance from a glance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I wouldn't necessarily say those graphs "smash" anything though; we are only seeing 1/40th of the available data. Each connected data point is avg fps per second, so any hiccups would be included in that average. we would need to see a non-smoothed raw data graph at least, but a histogram of frame render delay would be absolutely ideal.
You need to calculate on more detailed level to understand how smooth the game is. The graphic card and CPU works asyncronosly. If you calculate based on when picture is drawn from the GPU this isn't the same as when the CPU calculates points for the picture. The GPU is always behind the CPU. The GPU will also smear time spans between when the CPU calculate the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
To get a better value you need to time the EndScene API, when they are called if we are talking about Direct3D.
How the game feels depends on when the picture is calculated, not when it is drawn on the screen. Also the mouse is important, reading mouse data needs to be very exact.
You know Guys Graph & Charts do not prove everything :)
Q9650 vs phenom 9850.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
12MB cache vs 4Mb cache, and this was about DENEB Not Agena. agena will be slow preclock vs deneb even with agena Nb at 2.6ghz and cores a 3.0ghz.
here one for every oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Esau
"It's an optical illusion"
that your eyes conclude to. lol
the COH chart from hornet actually 'proves' this thread's point.
I think the word instead of smooth might also be "Stable framerates" as the drops and speedups in fps for the Q9550 are more noticeable while playing and thus not so smooth.
obiously vert. sync will help but then we're doing apples vs oranges in this thread.
I think that the chart you displayed with the frames and the time would be much more useful than the "max/min" idea or any graph of FPS over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Using the data you displayed you could make a graph of the time DELTA (change in time) between frames. (So it would show the time spent between each frame.)
Optimally this graph should be as flat as possible. Although realistically it won't be due to the operating system, rendering different things in the game, communication between CPU cores in a multi-threaded games, cache contention in the CPU, and a zillion other factors. (i.e., some factors related to the CPU, some are not. A good tester would attempt to eliminate most factors except for the CPU.)
BUT if you look at a graph of the delta vs the frame generally the system with the flatter graph would probably be the "smoother" system. Or if one system had a major dip in this graph on occasion and the other system did not. Of course this would have to be something that can be reproduced; a good tester would throw out weird anomalies that only happen one time and not use them.
NOTE: I know this image I am showing below is NOT REALLY RELATED. I am throwing it here into this post as an example of something similar to what we might expect to see by creating the type of graph I propose. POP QUIZ: If this WAS a graph of the time delta versus frame... which system would you rather have? (And amusingly the system with the higher min and max in this non-related example is also not the "better" system.)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3779/...examplevj5.jpg
just look back before the release of P2, even there you had the "smoother" argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
In my eyes the whole "smoother" debate is a non issue, if people have concerns about "smoothness" just tell them to enable vsync/frame rate limiter and everythings fine.
<sarcasm mode ON>Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
We're all just shocked that you, of all people, find this to be a non-issue.
<sarcasm mode OFF>
This is most especially true since we almost have a constructive conversation going on. That can NOT be allowed. You'll need to run to the other forum subsection and gather some of your cohorts.
Actually I'm sure I speak for many people when I say your comment is worthy of a very large yawn.
And changing the vsync won't actually change anything. It might hide the issue from any method that could possibly be used to determine the difference. (But then hiding the issue is probably acceptable to some people.)
If we indeed are going to get scientific about it, you need to understand that FPS inherently IMPLIES an average (frames every second). We need something more precise, where we can get frame-rate down to something like every 100ms. Then, at this level of precision, you can use the derivative of those peaks/valleys and come to an actual numeric value that would accurately convey the "smoothness", if you will, of said system.
To be honest, I doubt that's actually true but well:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Maybe it's indeed in the fps, but it might be caused by interconnect with CPU and GPU or whatever. I dont know.
I think, that problem of smoothness is not a problem of less framerate variance, because you cant see any difference if you have more than about 70-80 frames per second. As Mav451 noticed FPS is average so there is a possibility that in first half of the second we will have 50 fps, and in another half of the second we will have 100 fps, so it gives us average 75 fps, with which we shouldnt see any lags, but in first half of second we can see it.
I think in benchmarks we should look at max and min time between frames. If our max time between frames is less than about 12 ms then we shouldnt see any lags.
So if intel machines gives us higher max time between frames (MTBF ? :)) then it means that AMD is smoother.
P.S. My first post :)
Welcome to the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzigit
What you call the MTBF is what I called the delta time in my post #273.
If you graph this number versus the frame so that you can see the min and max then I think that it might actually display something that is measurable and repeatable.
This would not just be personal opinion and could not just be laughed off as something that doesn't exist. (Although some posters will attempt that even if this method does produce tangible results.)
Actually this is just good science. If we have a number of people experiencing something that we don't currently measure using the currently accepted methods then we need to find methods or a new model which explains and confirms or denies the experiential data. But going by past experience now that I've actually said that we want to find a method to measure this attribute we can expect several posts claiming it is not measurable and is subjective only. :shrug:
I think the average of the top ten percent of maximum time between frames would be a great tangible measure of "smoothness", and quite irrefutable IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Well, my worthless cents added...
If i7 isn't affordable at the $1500 price tag, why not just flip a coin between the PII/Q9550? Both are at $1000 budgets.
This is assuming you have a whole new build.
I mean, looking at the FPS AMD is either right there (limiters) or less than 10fps behind (minus the L4D 1920) - at resolutions our eyes can't even tell the difference except when down on paper.
If you can tell the difference between 119fps and 110fps time after time after time again...I would love to see that. Honestly would. It would be pretty cool to see.
But to 'nit pick' about who's smoother or has more fps by 2...worthless chat.
It's not like it's an extra 2mpg where over years it will save you quite a few tanks of gas for a commuter. It's a frame rate that goes down onto a piece of paper...to sit there until either the ink or paper deteriorates.
Anyhoo,
If you have money in or work for either Intel or AMD, I find absolutely no problem defending the company.
But come on people, they are not monitoring these forums looking for people.
Calm down, drink a beer, smoke something, use your free hand...something to release the built up tension.
It's not like AMD or Intel killed someone you know.
You are probably correct. But I think the change in the change would be more important. (OMG we just discovered benchmark calculus.)Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
But first we have to determine if this method creates something that can be seen as being different between the architectures. If it can't then we move on and look for something else that might.
fraps has frame times. just like the excel sheet i showed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mav451
@ keithlm on that pic you posted with the two graphs you can see that one stays about the same and one varies up and down. the one that varies has about the same average, has a higher max and has the same min. but thats not what you want to see. that is the idea of what kind of chart i would like to see. a chart showing the times it took the frames to be produced over time. with the time taking for each frame to be a data point. like you said in a perfect situation it should be a straight line.
Get me the data and I can chart that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
well first we need to have two systems which gave about the same average fps. one a core 2 and one a phenom I or II.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Haha oops. Well, then I guess all we're waiting for is someone to get SparkyJJO numbers to crunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
hey im curious about doing it for myself but i have rarely used excel. so to do this you would need to get one cell to subtract the value from the cell above it to get the time it took to get that frame. what would i need to type to get it to do this over and over? cause its a pita to tell it to get b4-b3 then b5-b4, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
You can do a click-drag from the bottom right corner of the cell that has the forumula. So you would drag it across or down and it would automatically fill in the cells and increment the references.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Sorry... I've been busy doing actual work stuff today. (OH THE TRAVESTY.)
Anyway... using the data you showed us we get this:
(Of course this only 48 frames... we should use thousands... but you get the idea. And it still looks like this idea might be useful.)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9107/examplegraphoy1.jpg
nice thanks. anyway so we need to find two similar systems now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
i very much support this, are there any progamers there that can write an app that can log frames over a variable time (frames per 100ms or even better frames per ms).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mav451
But loging in this short intervalls will generate much data, for 100ms you have 10 datasets per second and if you log each ms you will get 1000 datasets per second, should be made sure that the logging is on a extra drive or ramdisk so it dont influences the game itself.
Watch it your making the same assumption as gosh did, and jj alrady showed that theres next to no difference in games, regardless if its a HT/IMC bus or FSB that is used, even a FSB of 200 mhz is sufficient to deliver the same fps as a stock C2 or a P1/P2 with HT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
and im not surprised that statement comes from you. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
I am constructive, i give you the data i know off, concerning this data. Im intrigued by this yet your only statement is a dull flame towards me. But im not surprised at all, since you already labeled me as biggest troll in this forum.
Tell my why its a issue if you can "fix" that issue with enabling vsync/a frame limiter.
I am a gamer, i tweak my system/games to be as fast/pretty looking and yes even as smooth as possible. You lable it as cheat so that i can troll the forum, i lable it as way to get the best out of the games i play.
@ topic
some thought i have come up:
1)
If the perceived "smoothness" originates form high differences between min. and max. fps then the Cpu with the most raw performance is prone to this phenomenon. (especial in none gpu limted scenarios, cause most of the minimus are caused by graphics, only sometimes by the cpu)
2)
If the perceived "smoothness" originates from a non steady fps rate, it hard to tell right now, cause there aren't precise enough tools to measure it (we dont see fluctuations with the tools we have now), e.g. right now available tools only can measure the fps once per second, and if the frames would fluctuate over a larg ammount are in between this second, this might be the source of this phenomenon.
3)
If the perceived "smoothness" originates from the "eye of the beholder", as in the much debated topic "you can't see more then xx fps", the whole smoothness phenomenon may is preciceived different by each person. E.g. the data will be the same, and its the user/gamer that reads something into this.
That is what i have come up so far, regarding to this topic over the time and variouse other topics concerning this phenomenon.
1) and 2) are provable by tools and 3) is not provable in any way.
I hope someone comes up with a tool as Mav451 suggested.
hmmmm I seem to recall a pretty important person 'round here sigged
Can't for the life of me remember who though :p:Quote:
Phenom + Bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: = Smoother
i have said it at least 10 times in this thread and in many other threads. fraps logs the frame times that each frame comes out and thats as precise as it gets. all you do then is find the amount of time within each frame and make a chart. but first we need two systems that get the same exact average fps and then develop a testing method to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
ask jumpingjack, he has identical rigs (of course cpu/mobo is different) and if you ask nicely he will supply you with data, i think he even has a P2 now, afair he even said he might do something like that between P1,P2, Ci7 and C2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I can get you all the data you want from a 9950 system with a 280GTX.. But i dont have time at work to sit and collect this data off our head to head machines. Im far to busy sadly. Let me know what game you want to use and ill try and fraps the data out of it that your looking for. if someone els has a C2D or C2Q machine with a 280gtx and similar ram configuration that would be helpful.
Meh, I don't think average FPS matters at all. After all, the most important thing is that the derivative between the peaks/valleys is (absolute value) as close to 0 as possible. Overall performance, it doesn't matter - all we need right now is AMD or Intel users to start gathering data to generate this stuff. I guess the more important question:
What game are we using? And we need, at the very least, to keep the GPUs/RAM timings/etc. as similar as possible. Probably be easier for someone with both AMD and Intel setups.
Same basic hardware is imho not enough, you need same HDD, same addin cards (soundcard other gimmicks), same os, running same background services, same resolutions, same game settings, etc. (you get the idea ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by *GameOver*
Here are two new charts.
The first one is A quick world of warcraft run.
The second is basically the same thing WITH 4xPrime95 running at the same time.
It is obvious that the first run is "smoother" than the second run. Although I wish I had stretched them both out the same. (Okay... I re-saved the second one.)
Note: REMEMBER that this is NOT FPS. It is time between frames. The FPS on the first run was between 200 and 300 fps. The FPS on the second run was around 50FPS.
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7684/tbf1rx0.jpg
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/654/tbf2loadyh5.jpg
(And yes Hornet you ARE a troll.)
of course. the results are most likely gonna have to come from a person with both systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
lol ninja edit to save your face, cause saying its a none issue, if you enable vsnyc, is so much of trolling....Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
as said, try to ask JJ he has the means, and im sure when some people ask he might also has the will. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper