Ah, the affects of microstutter, gotta love 'em..
Printable View
Ah, the affects of microstutter, gotta love 'em..
What a load of BS, mind if I also join in and play this game too?
Since upgrading from AMD to Intel CPUs I definitely noticed more smoothness.
Since upgrading from ATI xfire to Nvidia SLI, I noticed significantly better smoothness, compatibility and far less lag.
Hypothetically speaking, if I upgraded to tri fire 7970s right now, I wouldnt notice any difference in smoothness while playing minesweeper.
Therefore, by the same logic of the article, this is proof that Intel and Nvidia > AMD.
I'm doubtful that the BD was smoother on its own accord, the Intel could of had the timing slacked on the ram, HT turned on which can have issues in some games ect....Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
At the end of the day no enthusiast should take such things literally because the things that matter to us and things we notice would not matter to the average consumer, if it good enough to do the job for the average consumer then its a job done as anything more would just goto waste on them because they don't notice anyway.
Oh yes, ram is very important for smoothness even on Intel I've compared two lots of 24 Gb Cas 9 1600 to my 12 Gb Cas 6 1700 / Cas 7 1900, and the faster 2 gb sticks were much smoother with less lag, despite FPS not changing too much, though I did get some very surprising results in metro bench that I posted a few times (2 Gb sticks always scored 300-400 points higher than 4 Gb sticks regardless of timings, even with Cas 11 2 Gb sticks vs Cas 9 4 Gb sticks).
There are so many variables to smoothness and lag in video games, that I find it ridiculous when only the CPU or GPU are considered for these things. If you want to fully minimize lag, then you want to get all of the following:
- Intel HEX core (overclocked)
- High speed low latency ram, 8 Gb minimum
- Fast SSD for your gaming drive
- Fast graphics cards with lots of Vram (3 Gb not 1.2 - 2 Gb).
In each individual point, the difference is so minimal that the cost isnt worth it. People only get that kind of gear if they are enthusiasts, it definately isnt needed for anyone simply playing games.
Why aren't there any plots showing the rendering time for each frame on the two different systems? Saying one system feels smoother than the other is meaningless without any data being presented.
Because its about how humans feel and perceive things and not about absolute numbers and on top of that it would not be a blind test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
Any one who claims that AMD must have manipulated the test rigs to make AMD look better have any real hard proof if not you are sticking to your agenda & :horse:
Please dont give reasoning such as PR goof ups of past as proof of your claims because then both the side equally have their share fare of goof-ups.
We are talking about smoothness , do you have any app that can measure smoothness , because A system may play game at 90Fps with stuttering but B system may play game at 59fps but with no stutter , I dont know how you can make this out with fps meter e.t.cQuote:
Originally Posted by Cold Fussion
Everything you perceive is directly from what is being displayed on the screen. The only difference to the end user is what is being display on the screen, so it's important to map this to correlate the data to the subjective impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
See here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ity-Lost/page4Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
EDIT
And if anyone wants to be let in on a secret: There are a multitude of things that cause microstutter which can be perceived as a smoothness issue.
Yes, it's called minimum FPS. Stuttering means disruption of the flow, that is, min FPS drops to below 25-30FPS, the level which the human brain can perceive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
A 2500k has been proven link to produce consistently better min FPS and average FPS than a 8150. A 2700k would walk all over it.
If anything, this shows how subjective human perception is, especially in a controlled environment by a interested party.
It's not just minimum fps. If the fps is all over the place between 25 and 60, it's not going to be a smooth experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Yes, because that minimum of 25FPS will be perceived as not smooth....
Even a cable connected to monitor may affect smoothness. Try using a nice DVI-D compared to DVI-I and notice how much faster big photos are loading when you move between them in Photo Viewer (works for 1680x1050 and up for sure).
I think no min/max fps/etc. tests may show the difference between cables used unless you actually check them out for yourself (only specific ones to test screen response/lag would).
Doubt that the mentioned 'trick' was used during the test though:)
I thought DVI-I was capable of doing both digital and analog signal, that's why there are those extra 4-pins, and I also highly doubt there's a speed difference between them that can be measured by simply "looking" at it... unless I'm missing the sarcasm here?Quote:
Originally Posted by motopen1s
When I was gaming at an almost-pro level about a decade ago I found that the thing that influenced the 'smoothness' the most was the sampling rate of the inputs. There was a ps/2 tool that could up the sampling rate, so you could clearly feel the difference between ordinary ps/2, 'oc' ps/2 and USB mice. Even the smoother mousepad gave this impression.
IIRC this debate started with the Kentsfield quads ... and has stuck to Intel ever since. But this is an exaggeration. Why not just show the time graph for min frame rates for each system ? I for one dont give :banana::banana::banana::banana: to the subjective opinions of 130 people. Fail BD Fail PR. Show us Piledriver already.
:flame:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
See answer below
^ This Min fps , change in Fps are just few of the factor affecting smoothness , SB being able to put better min fps can only help that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
i would like to see if all the nah sayers in this thread took this test, how many would pick the AMD rig too...
So you think saying "look how our new fx compares to intels top of the range i7" when the are useing a i5 is just a "goof-up". Or infecting forums with marketing men before a launch to spred bs and hype a product only to go into hiding on launch day. lately amd have had a poor marketing record and somthing like this that flyes in the face of all data is going to be believed by only the most forgiving fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
Is it really that bad ha , I see you really got effected by AMD's bad pr , I guess you must have lost millions of Dollar & lost some sleep at night & hair et.c betting on how Bulldozer was going to walk all over competition by having 100% belief in PR , you have my sympathy & I agree of you to type in every AMD thread how bad AMD is Blah blah Intel rules Blah Blah & then when Ivy Bridge comes out you can record a HD video of F1 2011 game & then act like you are really playing the game by jerkin around a steering wheel showing off to your friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
/Rant.
The "jerkin around a steering wheel showing off to your friends" got me rofl :D. It was an epic moment of fail that will be remembered long after ivybridge is gone and replaced with something better :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
wait, what? I was just giving a reason of why i do not believe this amd marketing stunt and gave valid reasons as per request. why the rant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
And just to add, i would not believe what intels marketing team spout also, as proved by there recent sham, i guess some people can be unbiased that way.
Hey informal, you are letting your bias show, surley you will hold all companys to the same standards and show amd the same distaste with their recent marketing bs?