Crysis 3: AMD FX CPUs dominate, INTEL left behind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tao~

One senseless word in the title and this thread is 5 pages and growing - lousy reporting has its advantages ;)


That is very unlikely to happen. If X can keep up with Titan at 720p then it will surely be able to it at 1080p because the GPU load increases much more than CPU load as resolution climbs. What you are suggesting is not really a CPU benchmark - though I wouldn't say its any less useful. In fact to make it even more related to the average customer , I would like to see a 4.5 Ghz 3570K vs 4.8 Ghz FX8350 comparision (budget overlclock on air) w/ 1080p @ 4xAA 16xAF

---

Still is a CPU benchmark as long as the rest of the components are the same.
And since overclocking the CPU can make a difference for Intel Core 2nd & 3rd generation processors with a single GTX 680, with the Titan or an SLI/CF config ( I hate them, but since people use those, putting those to the test as well would be nice ) the gap could be wider.

I have seen reviews that could be used to compare a GTX 680 with an FX-8150 and a 2600K, but can't be sure about the results ( validity, consistency, testing routines, configs, etc ).
I'd really like to do it myself, but can't be arsed to spend more money on tech, especially one I don't need and has nothing to offer me at all for the time being at least ( perhaps somebody might lend me an AMD FX platform to do those tests, we'll see ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

How are they limiting the game to run on one core only on hexa core? By affinity mask? If game code recognizes that there is 6C CPU in the system and you limit it artificially via process manager to use only one core, you cannot blame the game for bad performance in that case...

---

By disabling the cores in the bios e.g.
I doubt they go through the hassle to assign affinity masks every time (which often get ignored if you do it via windows task manager)

Even when the do assignment via taskmanger a sungle thread should always be maxed out, even more so on amd then intel (which both shouldn't matter on a HT aware system), but they don't. It works for dual and quadcores and everything above the rsults are just a mess.
As said I distrust crytek ever since the crysis 2 fiasco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightSpeed

Youre funny. How much of a difference will HT make? 75%? Go on, say that you use an AMD system now but yes, HT will make an enormous difference

---

I'm a gamer, couldn't pay me to use an AMD CPU. No, it will not make a huge difference but for intel cpus but add 5-10% to the intel cpus and all of the sudden the AMD results only look remarkable in that Vishera is keeping up instead of lagging behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piledriver

Nice to see the nvidia zealots doing the fight for Intel fanboys.



Oh noes AMDZ looking good on Crysis 3, patch it or kill it with fire.

---

How am I a "NVIDIA zealot"? I have one AMD box, one NVIDIA box, giving AMD equal space. Bought one 680, one 7970.

You see me around here posting "OMGWTFBBQ?!?" about Titan? No, I stated they're nice, won't be buying.

On the other hand, if the "true" 8000 series came out, I'd buy one. (at least at $500-$600, no $1000 for AMD either)

Just saying the game is obviously poorly optimized for hyper threading, and were it optimized for hyperthreading, the AMD results wouldn't be so remarkable.

And for better or worse hyperthreading is what most of the market has for above 4 core threading. (although I personally have an intel hex core)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piledriver

Nice to see the nvidia zealots doing the fight for Intel fanboys.

---

Around 60-80% of my previous CPUs and GPUs were AMD / ATi.

However as Rollo put it, currently I wouldnt put an AMD CPU into my gaming rig even if you paid me to. I make a decision on what to buy from benchmarks, and every OTHER benchmark from every site on the internet shows that AMD CPUs have been worse for gaming than Intel ever since S775.

If AMD could get back to as good as they were in the S939 days, I'd use more of their CPUs without hesitation. I remember paying 350 GBP for an Athlon X2 4400+. It lasted me for almost 4 years because it was that good. Currently my I7 980 is likely going to last me for at least double that time. Theres nothing that AMD can currently do to make me consider ditching it for one of their CPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piledriver

Oh noes AMDZ looking good on Crysis 3, patch it or kill it with fire.

---

Not one person in this thread has complained about AMD doing well, rather the complete opposite. People who can think rationally have simply noticed that Intel CPUs are vastly under performing and that this should be fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Not one person in this thread has complained about AMD doing well, rather the complete opposite.

---

Exactly. AMD not doing well is one of the primary reasons Intel CPUs are more expensive.
Bulldozer fiasco cost both AMD and consumers a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Exactly. AMD not doing well is one of the primary reasons Intel CPUs are more expensive.
Bulldozer fiasco cost both AMD and consumers a lot.

---

good comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

Exactly. AMD not doing well is one of the primary reasons Intel CPUs are more expensive.
Bulldozer fiasco cost both AMD and consumers a lot.

---

Oh, well thats true too, though I meant that people were saying positive things about AMD CPUs doing well, not negative.

I wish I'd never bothered wasting time with an E8400 and I7 920 now, should have just gone from my X2 4400+ > I7 980.

In the future I'm just going to slap the best CPU architecture into my PC and be sorted for a good long time like I was with those two CPUs. Well, actually I paid less for an I7 920 + 980 than a 980x would have cost me so that was OK, just going with the C2D in between was a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

currently I wouldnt put an AMD CPU into my gaming rig even if you paid me to.

---

I personally don't care about CPUs as much as I care about the mobo chipsets...

There is enough gamers with DirectX 11 now that games may skip previous versions and that means that they can improve performance using more threads.
DX10 and before couldn't use multi-threaded rendering. More cores will increase performance in DX11

This thread :lol:

-PB

I really hope more new games will follow suit and be multi-threaded like Crysis 3...words can't explain how pissed off I was that I could only utilize 80% of my 6970 crossfire setup when I first got my fx CPU, no games could utilize all the cores. Hey, this could turn out like when AMD put out the 64-bit Opteron and Athlon and Intel reacted with the updated Xeon and Pentium 4...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piledriver

Well i said when bulldozer came out, in the midst of all the bashing that sooner or later Intel would make their bulldozer. And looking how well vishera does in multi-thread apps, it can be a surprise they also do well in multi-thread games.

AMD right now is incredibly dependent of the software guys, not only the multi-thread thing, but also and most importantly, GPU acceleration support:


http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph5835/46687.png

>50% increase in performance with current apu's.

---

Software encoding produce better image quality than OpenCL

Better performance for less quality. No thanks

On page 3, still reading, and with a huge smile on my face.... I actually think its funny and sad..

w0mbat, you are a fanboy, no shame in that, but really, your approach is extremely biased, and you keep slapping everyone that suggests that it is not total ?ber domination... Take a chill pill, and leave XS news section alone if you feel the urge to pick a war with anyone seeing things differently than yourself.

As for the news: Think software patches will even out things, but time will tell - none the less, nice to see the bulldozer/vishera isnt completely fail, because..... It was just not what we expected it to be at launch.

You guys, just go get a 120 Hz monitor and you'll feel allot better...seriously you will.

I think it's time to get the Ban Hammer ready.

Lets knock it off with the attacks.

Is there any image quality test (by Anand?) that shows us the difference between OpenCL accel. transcoding and traditional one(slow way)? We seldom hear that argument about poorer image quality and all but I haven't seen anyone actually shows us how worse is it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w0mbat

Hey, this was/is very surprising: AMDs new FX CPUs outclass even the current Intel CPUs. Only the SNB-E 6-core CPU is able to perform better than the FX-8350. Seems to be highly multi-threaded. Maybe we'll see more of this with games optimized for the upcoming console generation.

source: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis...hmark-1056578/
http://i.imgur.com/qSNrpeA.png

What do you think?

---

I think an FX-8350 with a Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3 AM3+ would cost less than a i7 3770k, and kick its rear :yepp:


(in before this silly thread gets locked)

An important aspect of this for anyone with multi GPU would be if this prowess on single GPU translates to multi GPU at this game as well.

We've all seen benches where the AMD chips are close in single GPU but fall down at multi, so does the highly threaded Crysis 3 reverse that trend?

As a multi GPU owner, I'd be interested.

Its been fun watching but time for the lock on this one.