Printable View
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