Printable View
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...ungle_1024.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...human_1024.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha..._evil_1024.png
http://pclab.pl/art52489-9.html
It seems performance depends on the levels. The "welcome to the jungle" level can take advantage of more threads and only there AMD can match Intel.
Are there any full benchmarks at commonly-played resolutions and quality? We all know that's where the benchmark matters, in min fps/stutters and such. If I want to see CPU benchmarks I'd head straight to WPrime.
While at it, since you started a new thread, I'll answer informal's question.
Found this through googling. http://techreport.com/review/23324/a...ng-on-the-pc/5Quote:
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.
No quality difference. The 'poorer quality' argument only applies to fixed-function encoders i.e. they don't use shaders.
No 3960X?
-PB
Why so different to all other CPU tests out there? Seems strange, especially those very low fps at that resolution. Smth is wrong here.
w0mbat's fanboyistic logical :
Test is good for AMD -> Test is valid
Test is good for Intel -> Test is wrong
Ok guys let's not go down that road again,previous topic got locked and I suspect some posters got a "PM" :).
Just what I wanted to see - 4.5 Ghz 3570K vs 4.7 Ghz FX8350 . However I am having difficulty analyzing the results - graph I shows AMD is back in the game but 2 & 3 show AMD is where it has been for the past few years .
I think there may be more than just CPU perf. affecting these results here. Some more data ( hopefully in English) would be helpful before coming to any conclusions.
lol you guys are going to make Buckeye older in a shorter time! :D
Lay off with the fanboyism.
First of all, I think the test is off, now why would you run the 3770K in OC and not the FX8350? Cmon, fairplay - sure the 3770K is more likely to boost, but still, level the playing field. (Refering to welcome to the jungle)
Second; From the last thread DilTech made it pretty obvious that Crysis3 is still not very mature, and does not take advantage of hyperthreading, while using the AMDs threads to their full potential.
No wonder, no suprise that AMD is a little ahead, but it is a matter of time before a patch comes, not a patch to sack AMD, but to let the Intel CPUs with hyperthreading take advantage of their technology.
Yeah I am with you on this, maybe its the same bullcrap crytek pulled with crysis 2 where they put tessellation everywhere, so the limiting factor was the GPU or better the power of the tessellation unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tao~
http://techreport.com/review/21404/c...f-a-good-thing
And some levels are more affected then others.
Since when is a 4.7GHZ FX8350 stock?Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
A stock i3 3220 is beating a stock FX4300
The other benchmark were showing FX-4300 winning. So, which one should we trust ?
Also, it is worth to mention that i5 3570 smokes an overclocked FX-8350 in 2 of the 3 of those tests. THe one test which FX8350 wins doesn't even matter because the frame-rate on i5 3570 was already high
So, what AMD fanboys think about this are they going to say it is fake just because it favors Intel and not AMD ?
Sorry my bad, I guess I dont work well before breakfast ;)
I didnt spot the 4.7ghz in first chart, I'll go hide now ;)
Yes, old good Wombat :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
More threads = AMD is betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Tao~
One main thread that do most work = Intel is better
It depends on the load CPU needs to handle
Most applications that need raw CPU power tries to scale the load to more threads but it is difficult so if it is possible to do it in one thread they go for that. Applications isn't going to scale to more threads utnil there is a real advatage.
the difference is that they used other levels beside welcome to the jungle.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Look up the results from welcome to the jungle form pcghardware and this one, they are quite similar. In fact they match each other quite well when you look at the stock results from both one.
http://i.imgur.com/qSNrpeA.pnghttp://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...ungle_1024.png
I dont consider difference of +/- 1 fps more then the margin of error. The only real difference is the FX6300 vs the 3570, were the last one score a bit higher avg fps and has a bit higher performance compared to the 6300.
Its the application that is multithreaded. That they have more threads running on one level and less on other is not correct ( only their load should vary from scene to scene ). As Hornet331 pointed out this is more likely some Crytek bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: If I had to predict, those graphs would be lining up blue on top and red below on all levels after some patches.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
I am telling you, I am old enough now and don't need to get any older !! LOL :)Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Beier
How many threads can Crysis 3 support? up to 12 threads?
The more I think of this, the more I like it.
While I doubt devs are going to start making games highly threaded, if they did it might drive intel to increase cores. For my part, I'd love to start buying AMD CPUs again if they were competitive at gaming.
I wonder if these scores translate to competitive multi GPU at this game?
The thing with C3 and testing CPUs is very simple. It's all about finding a place that has ANYTHING to do with CPU.
"Welcome to the jungle" is showing AMD is equal to Core i7-3770K - right it is. Too bad that place is not important like at all - there's nothing happening and you get constant 70 fps. Why would you test a CPU in that place? CPU's not limiting factor there. Amateurs.
Situation completely changes when you find a place that's CPU limited.
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha..._evil_1024.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...human_1024.png
PCGH was testing a performance of a graphics card, not a CPU.
Conclusion is: don't try testing CPU if you have no :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing idea how to do that. And Pcgameshardware have no idea.
And to make that clear, because someone would have come up with that sooner or later: yes, i'm from pclab.
Sigh. So much for the last hope of AMD. :(
A question for those who own crysis 3:
Is welcome to the jungle the standard benchmark run in crysis 3?
Not necessarily. Different level, different workload, different result.Quote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat
You're quite wrong. PCGH is the no. 1 in CPU benchmarks. Just because the CPUs were close together doesn't imply a CPU bottleneck. Look at the resolution, 720p.Quote:
Originally Posted by c22
Also, you made a quite grave mistake:
1024x768 is a 4:3 resolution. CPU performance can depend on aspect ratio, because if you have a wider field of view, more objects will be displayed at the edges, thus increasing CPU load. But you're a professional, right? :rolleyes:
16:9 resolutions should be used to benchmark CPUs, and because 1080p is rather GPU bottlenecked, 720p is the best choice. In most cases it is more demanding than 800x600 or 1024x768.
I think that Crysis 3 is GPU limited all over ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by c22
Graphs you showed is using four cores or less and probably one renderthread. It is easy to spot that it is motsly one thread that is doing most work. Increasing resolution to 1080p and there will be similar performance on all cpu's
Tell me something I don't know.
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...human_1920.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha..._evil_1920.png
Of course C3 is GPU limited. That's why pclab made a test in 3 different places using 2 different resolutions.
PCGH is showing us only 1/3 of a truth, but it doesn't matter cause "PCGH is the no. 1 in CPU benchmarks.", right? Time to look around and verify some vortals, because they're apparently not even close to being to "no. 1". Far from that.
And if you play at higher resolutions, CPUs still bottleneck GPU performance so its still a fair method of analysing CPU performance.
Testing at these low resolutions is stupid, as are the reasons that people want me to believe as to why it is a valid way of testing CPU performance.
No one puts a GTX 680 and a current 4-8 core CPU together only to play games at 1024x768. Show some real results from at least 1080p.
So we're clear on that one. PCLab alone done a test in 3 places, 2 resolutions and PCGH made test in ONE location, ONE resolution which is still useless. Now tell me more about "PCGH being no. 1" :D Ridiculous :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
EOT
FX-8350 can handle up to eight threads (kind of).Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Intel?s 3770K can handle eight threads.
Care to explain why is AMD better when it comes to handle several threads?
It's all about the coding. Crytek just coded the game for AMD's CPUs.
As stated before, a patch for Intel CPUs might well turn the graphs.
Altough it would be cool if AMD was better, just for the sake of competence.
Man... do we have to go over this in every god damn benchmark thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Both low and high resolution test have a place, as said a low resolution test is a pure cpu benchmark test and has its right to exists. So lets see what happens when a new gpu comes out, one is already close to the limit the other can still provide more and put the new gpu to better use.
I disagree. Its really not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
If you want to purely test CPUs, then you use synthetic benchmarks not games. If you want to test game performance, then you run settings that people would actually run.
I believe he meant that it was pure as far as the game in concerned. If you reduce the graphical load you ensure that the GPU will not be slowing your test.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
As far as games are concerned, 1024x768 testing is meaningless as it doesnt show real world performance that gamers will be getting at 1080p and up.
And anyone thats running lower than 1080p isnt going to have specs like those in the test rig.
In this one case for Crysis 3, I dont think that any of the results are valid because it seems like another case of early release performance bugs and poor optimization, and the amount of difference between the tests is just too random to pinpoint a single reason.
Exactly, there doesnt seem to be as much optimization for Hyper Threading. The results are not conclusive of which CPU is better, only which CPU certain parts of the game are currently better optimized for.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maņo
3770K is better for threads compared to 3570K and it is more expensive. The cache is also bigger compared to 3570K but not as large as FX-8350. Cache is important if games are using a lot of memoryQuote:
Originally Posted by El Maņo
Testing at 1024x768 is not supposed to show real world performance, it shows variable limited performance. It's showing the effect of the CPU alone (as best they can) on frame rates. Looking at the results it just seems like crysis 3 loves it some threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Come on guys, we've been over this 123314 times before. If your CPU has 100 fps in lower resolution it might have similar fps to that if you GFX is strong enough. On the other hand, if it can only do 60 fps in lower res, what do you think it will have in higher res..
If you are using GF8400GS you might as well have Celeron.. As some guy called Keiichi Tsuchiya said - it's all about the ballance ;).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darakian
well at least some people get it, before whining "b-b-but its not real world"Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Even if you're right, as many people have asked - WHERE are the 1080p+ CPU comparison results so they can at least be compared to the low resolution results?
Without the comparison, these tests are meaningless and serve zero purpose to people playing at higher resolutions. I want to see how different CPUs compare at higher resolutions when they potentially start bottlenecking the GPU, not at lame low resolutions where the GPU isn't even being stressed.
It makes a HUGE difference when your GPU is high end and potentially being bottlenecked by weak CPUs at high resolutions.
actually not just coding. having native cores is always better then having virtual cores. intel implementing ht tech really well but as the cores are not physical ht has it's flaws (also advantages). also it is not a rare situation that disabling ht increases the gaming performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Maņo
CPU scaling benchmarks with relation to resolution and cpu importance on GPU bottlenecking? Been done, gets ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
You trolling? Didn't it enter your mind that due to the multithreaded nature of Cryengine 3 AMD could gain on Intel under some circumstances? I've read comments of a programmer working at Crytek regarding this. Both results are perfectly fine, theirs and yours. Again: different level, possibly different outcome. While I agree that they could have chosen more levels to bench, they have a long standing expertise in selecting demanding and yet representative benchmark scenarios for their CPU tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by c22
And you have yet to change your antiquated resolution for benchmarking. No one plays at 5:4 or 4:3 anymore.
No, they are not meaningless. What counts is framerate. 1080p and up would decrease performance further unless you are CPU bottlenecked. What purpose do 1080p benchmarks serve if the fps in those settings are too low for comfort? You can and should always lower resolution or settings to achieve the fps you want/need. What else are these options for? People always forget that because reviews mostly benchmark with maximum graphic settings.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Just look at the quoted benchmarks above. The FX4300 gets 22fps. You can cram 4 graphics cards in there, overclock them to kingdom come, but in this scene you will never ever get more than those 22fps. At 1080p the 3570K and FX4300 would likely seem on par at 20fps or so, but in reality they are not. The 3570K can push at least 30fps, the FX4300 only 20fps. You would not have that information if those benchmarks were conducted at 1080p or above. And more information is always better.
So in conclusion:
Low res benchmarks (16:9 or 16:10) can provide valuable information and are perfectly fine and in tune with "real gameplay" as long as the gamer is smart enough to adjust game settings to suit his/her needs.
I only just noticed that there were some 1080p benchmarks right there.
Its a very similar case to BF3, the game hits GPU limitation very quickly, its hardly CPU limited at all.
I cant believe the claims I'm hearing that this low resolution testing is a valid method of testing CPU limitation in a graphics hungry game running with a GTX 680. If you want to test CPUs then do it in an application that doesn't rely so heavily on the GPU. Any game is going to be biased based on which hardware it is coded to run best on. And its very obvious, at 1080p neither Intel nor AMD are winning. Both their CPUs are too weak for such a graphics limited game.
And no, you should NEVER lower the resolution below a current monitors native resolution. The amount of blurring an loss of sharpness and IQ is never worth moving away from your monitors native resolution. Reduce AA first, then graphics settings. The only exception being if you are playing very old games that don't support, or look too uncomfortable at high resolutions.
It doesn't matter if a game is graphics hungry or not. You act like ingame graphics options don't exist. Look at these GPU benchmarks:Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3r3ua8.jpg
The 680 gets 38fps avg and 32fps min. Would you want to play at such low fps? I certainly wouldn't. I would turn down settings to achieve at least 50fps avg, better yet 50fps min, and exactly then will the difference between different CPUs become more apparent. It seems you haven't read my explanation at all. It's about fps, not bottlenecks. fps...if CPU A can do only 40fps, but CPU B can do 60, that is valuable information right there, no matter if at default settings you are GPU bottlenecked or not. Because settings aren't set in stone, they are changeable to cater to your demands. That is why they exist.
Only when all CPUs can achieve highly playable fps, let's say 100+, differences become irrelevant.
the problem of Crysis 3 seems to be that one thread is continually on max - no matter how much clock or IPC on this thread. This means on every Intel / AMD CPU one Thread is durably not available for graphics in general. You can see in benchmarks that clock doesn't matter that much, means if there could be a FPS limit regarding to that one cpu limited thread, it should scale differently...
Of course, when a dualcore like the i3 is pushed to max on one core (what ever causes this 100% single thread) - there is only one core left to handle the other stuff which is shared on other threads quite well.
See here:
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis348cq8.jpghttp://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis325xdm7.jpg
EIST off 6x 4,32 Ghz
Settings:
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00uqp20.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00j8p8n.jpg
Graphics + FPS:
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-004cf7a.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00n6ehe.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00lee59.jpg http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00ybia5.jpg
http://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00dvp0n.jpghttp://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-00tisq0.jpghttp://www.abload.de/thumb/crysis3-2...24-006vupw.jpg
By the way. U need to disable vsync else the load on gpu is less due fix on 30 FPS.
Erm WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by boxleitnerb
I said that you should reduce settings to maintain comfortable smoothness, but without changing from your monitors native resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
I agree with you, but thats not the case here at all. The difference in the results at 1080p with the latest CPUs is 33 FPS vs 31 FPS, theres virtually no clear cut winner between Intel or AMD CPUs. Overclocking the CPUs by 1 Ghz hardly makes any difference either.Quote:
if CPU A can do only 40fps, but CPU B can do 60, that is valuable information right there, no matter if at default settings you are GPU bottlenecked or not.
Also in such a CPU comparison, why were they afraid to also add in an Intel hex core CPU?
You don't seem to understand :(
33 or 31fps, for many people both are unplayable. If you lower graphics quality so that you can achieve more fps, the difference becomes 34 vs 48 in the "Post-Human" level and 35 vs 48 in the "The roof of all evil" level (FX8350 vs 3770K). Quite seizable, isn't it. It doesn't really matter if you get these results by lowering resolution or by lowering graphics settings - the end result is that with reduced graphics workload, the Intel systems are much faster and provide a better gaming experience than the AMD systems at actually playable framerates.
How often do I have to say it?
1080p doesn't or above matter if the fps achieved at this resolution are too low.
Oh right, I get it now... So we need to see 1080p with reduced graphics settings as well then.
@bhavv
there is no 1 perfect cpu gaming test, we probably agree on that.
the point of low res testing it to show the max fps you will get for each cpu.
but that is still limited by the settings. so they should do a few, like max physics and effects, medium, and lowest settings.
some of us have super powerful cpus and want to see what speed is needed to get 60fps at max settings for the cpu AND gpu side, so they have to split that.
others have limited resources and should see what settings are needed to enjoy the game on their cpu. there is no way i would be playing crysis under 30fps, so i would sacrifice settings if its cpu limited, or resolution and AA if its gpu limited.
its hard to test "real world" because no configuration is the same. for me i like to have 1920x1200 and will give up view distance and AA to keep it. someone else might prefer 1280x800 and keep 4xAA on, and each has their benefits. typically though, cpu speed needed is not affected heavily by resolution.
make senes now?
@c22
Would you mind telling me why PCL used very high setting as well? Aren't CPU test supposed to be done with low res + low settings? VH in C3 is very demanding of GPU even on 10x10 pixel resolution :d You are still very much GPU bound in those tests. I play C3 with i3 2100 @1080p and have fps limited to 60 and use low/high combo settings. Very rarely does fps go under 40, or even 55 tbh (except for the first levels due to that rope bug). In pcgh and pcl tests anything bellow i5 cpu is pointless at VH settings unless the goal was to just show which processors cannot handle VH at all o.O
@gx-x
But do you play at low res + low settings? Nope, so this test is pretty much pointless, but we do that anyway, to show the difference IF title is bottlenecked by GPU at 1920x1080.
We're testing mostly in full HD, because it's actually how it should be done. It's the simple rule: you're not playing at 1024x768 nor 1280x720. You're playing at 1680x1050 and higher. So you need to check CPU performance at 1920x1080 anyway. You can almost always find a place in the game that's CPU dependant, even at 1920x1080 max settings - it's just a matter of time and.. knowledge.
Look at there: http://pclab.pl/art50000-14.html
Pages from 14 to 28 - CPUs at stock settings.
Pages from 51 to 71 - OCed settings.
Battlefield 3, Max Payne 3, Metro 2033. They all say those titles are GPU dependant... Sure they're unless you know how to find a proper place, where CPU testing has actual sense. And most of those review sites out there simply CAN'T find the place, and on the other hand: we CAN ;)
Another example: Far Cry 3 being GPU bottlenecked? That's funny, because it's not. It's CPU limited.
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...koc_1_1920.png
http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/cha...xoc_1_1920.png
It's a matter of finding a good place - just saying.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough: when testing/comparing CPUs, why very high details? I also don't play in 720p very high settings, I'd rather go native res and lower details, BUT, when comparing CPU capabilities in a game shouldn't you just eliminate some shoddy codding that often happens in very high settings (they don't care to optimize for that kind of setting) and just pair lower res with some lower or mid settings? I mean, who goes for gtx680 with Athlon x4 or i3 540 and uses lower res with ultra high settings? Remember, we are testing CPUs, not GPU. I am Ok with 1080p tests but you should have included lower details so the lower end lot in the test actually shows some "numbers" that can be compared. From your CPU test in C3 one would conclude that game is not playable on something like i3...which is far from truth. I didn't pair my i3 with TITAN, but with 560Ti 2gb...and I play it with 50-60fps (locked at 60) with low/high combo.Quote:
Originally Posted by c22
Games can be CPU and GPU bottlenecked, depending on the scene/level. If you disable MSAA in FC3 (a low setting :rolleyes:), of course you will be more CPU bottlenecked.
Wrong. I thought we had that covered already. But have fun with your low fps...Quote:
Originally Posted by c22
I think you need to re-read whats been said, boxleiternerb.
1080@med high settings looks to be the sweet spot regardless of CPU. The real winner for those of us gamers on a budget is the 6300 IMHO.
How about a rope benchmark:
http://maldotex.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...rst-level.html
How so? I cannot hear this complaining about low res benchmarks anymore, it gets old :)Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
I agree with bhavv for the most part. I'm still on my 4890 and the resolution is the last thing I decrease before reducing other details to playable resolutions. Tbh, I don't even run MSAA anymore, seeing how superior MLAA is. I pretty much use MLAA from RadeonPro (or if I get a newer card, I'd use MLAA straight from the control panel. It's one of the factors stopping me from going nvidia on my next card. FXAA just can't beat MLAA).
Someone else argued that NONE of the settings at higher res are in playable fpses. Fine, reduce the settings but don't reduce the resolution (bhavv also mentioned this). You'll see why some reviews set reso to 1080p and settings to mid. That's a fair comparison. Game still looks nice, but don't give us resos like 1024x768 that nobody plays at.
As for playability, 30 fps seems fine to me, as it has always been. I admit 60 fps gives a great experience (and 120 fps, even better, if you can even maintain such a high min fps), but 30 fps is still playable. I'd rather sacrifice fps for graphical fidelity. I end up raging how terrible the graphics get if I ever decrease my graphics just to gain more fps for say, multiplayer. 30 fps min is my hard limit regardless.
So, the best benchmark is IMO, at playable settings which is 30 fps min (NOT at crappy resolutions), then have the CPUs have a go at each other. From the looks of it, none of the benchmark seems to offer that but I'd still pick the safe pick, which is Intel (pity, I have always been an AMD fan. I have a Phenom II just because of it). I should check out hardwarecanucks, I do remember them testing games at resolutions people play at, and at playable settings.
Finally what really makes 1024x768 a pointless test is the fact that you can always go for synthetics/real world application for CPU benchies. Gaming tests are supposed to test your gaming experience. 1024x768 is not a pleasant gaming experience.
I'd thank bhavv for all his posts but since I don't like to spam everyone's screens, here's a thank for bhavv on this post. Thanks bhavv, excellent posts.
HARDOCP disagrees with you, says FXAA is much faster and offers similar image quality:Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/...g_technology/4
Which is not great news for me as I'll have 7970CF in my main rig as soon as a longer CF bridge arrives.
But, I got Crysis 3 with the Never Settle Reloaded bundle, will see how it does on a 990X/7970 today, downloaded last night.
I'm sorry for the blatant OT, but is it really true that Rollo owns AMD cards or is he kidding? That's like Charlie buying nVidia shares ... I'm away from these boards for way too long it seems and things 've changed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
/end of OT, carry on.
You want to use SMAA from SweetFX, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...ps80632953.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Stevethegreat
I bought the second 7970 for the Crysis3/Bioshock bundle, have two 7970s and two 680s now.
Zalbard, thanks for the SMAA tip, looks like I may have issues with it in Windows 8, but I'll try it! :)
First of all, have you never heard of MLAA 2.0? That review is old. All the AMD cards now uses MLAA 2.0 which has absolutely no performance impact and fixed the blurring problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
EDIT: All right, I did some googling. Here's some MLAA 2.0 results. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5625/a...hern-islands/3
Too bad, I'm more interested in 0x MSAA + MLAA 2.0 but this will do. 2% performance drop apparently.
Secondly, I still have RadeonPro for SMAA in case MLAA does suck. Nvidia doesn't have SMAA unless it's injected with SweetFX. The problem with SweetFX is that they use an injection method, which means online games most of the time doesn't work.
Thirdly, SMAA is MLAA if I read back then correctly. MLAA =Morphological AA. SMAA= Subpixel Morphological AA.
EDIT: SMAA is based on MLAA, with subpixel optimizations. So right now, I have no clue what MLAA 2.0 is, although I recalled reading some slides that the optimizations they did were essentially SMAA. I may be wrong regardless.
MLAA 2.0 is basically equivalent to FXAA. They solved performance and blurring problems that plagued 1.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
SMAA is much better than either of these.
A little comparison
About SMAA
Not equivalent. FXAA has blurring. MLAA does not. SMAA is MLAA but improved in visuals and performance. The website you linked also has presentation slides on how exactly they improved performance. MLAA 2.0 is also improvement on MLAA, but on how exactly they managed to improve it, is not disclosed. I'm pretty sure MLAA 2.0 is SMAA but take my statement with a pinch of salt as I am unable to find the information anymore (dig up AMD's old slides to find out, my google-fu is not strong enough). Also, rather than just spout blatantly wrong statement like FXAA is MLAA, here's some hard data. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=360336 Image quality comparison. No FXAA though but seeing how similar MLAA and SMAA is should tell you how superior they are to FXAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Hahaha that was a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
Did a comparison between No-AA, MSAA 4x and SMAA (ultra_preset), some days ago.
http://kirkedam.mine.nu/kwk/Bilder%2...20AA%20BF3.jpg
http://kirkedam.mine.nu/kwk/Bilder%2...204x%20BF3.jpg
http://kirkedam.mine.nu/kwk/Bilder%2...ltra%20BF3.jpg
My conclusion was that SMAA blurs the image indeed, but it gives very nice AA at a very low frame rate cost, so the positives outweigh the negatives.
Yep, it was a good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3148-2.html
Pics are using in-game settings FXAA however. I've tried numerous other methods to actually make FXAA looks better (like, FXAA + sharpening). Keep going back to SMAA, and I would use MLAA 2.0 if I got a 5xxx and above card.
@Kallenator: Hard to tell whether that's blurring or AA if you look at the second and third supports after the bridge, to the left.
I understand they want to show difference between CPUs so they benchmarked at 1280x720.. But people that want to play Crysis3 and have the goods to play it won't run 1280x720. They will run 1080p+ . The test does show one big difference between i7+SMT and FX, the rest is not that dramatic. I can put the slides which show practically same fps from the same test(or one scoring 98 and other 81,one 103 other 91 etc.),but all can click and see for themselves.
Here, have two screenshots. These are mine, not some random site on the internet. One is with 8xAA and the other is your beloved MLAA 2.0, everything else is the same. Open them without resizing of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
http://thumbnails107.imagebam.com/24...6241161769.jpg http://thumbnails108.imagebam.com/24...e241161777.jpg
I know it's gonna be difficult, but try to find which is which. Then tell me MLAA 2.0 doesn't blur everything out. OK, call it distortion if you want.
It doesn't matter how good or bad an AA technique is when I can't even get ingame because I can't see sh|t in the main menu. Haha, look at that Fraps number, *shame* ;)
so why does SMT (on/off) effect the intel so much...SMT is hyper threading correct? the i7 3770k with smt off have 4 cores... smt on have 8 cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
It scores so much better in that one scenario(vs FX). Maybe it's something specific to the game engine that makes good use of resources when SMT is on,in that specific level. Remember this is at 720p, the difference at higher resolutions won't be that dramatic in that one level ,but i7+SMT would probably still be ahead.
optimized grass for MT... nothing else... oh boy its maximum tessellation all over again... gg crytek :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
I wonder what they even have done to the grass to be so cpu depended in the first place...
Its mentioned in the article, every scene where massive amount of grass is present a HT less i7 is offers the same performance as a FX everywhere else the i7 is (measurable better) and of course HT enabled massively hampers the i7 in all scenarios for what ever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So wait,if I understood you correctly, HT enabled helps with scenarios where grass is present and hampers everything else?
Or RadeonproQuote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I can't stand FXAA or MLAA. They've gotten better but still kill texture quality. If anything I'll use SMAA and even then I prefer to use it with MSAA.
Hell, I use SSAA whenever I get the chance.
Is there an actual benchmark bundled into this game or are all these 'benchmark" results just a single player level thats being played/recorded/graphed/monitored?
Hell yeah, I play the in-game menu :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Still, you did convince me to use SMAA for most of the time, and when it fails (for games that uses java like minecraft, or those that simply won't work with radeonpro), MLAA 2.0 for me.
no it hampers performance in general, it just has less impact on grass levels, best performance is achieved without HT.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In short i7(no HT)>FX>i7(HT) overall and in grass levels i7(no HT)~FX>>i7(HT)
Which is quite funny, since in Crysis 2 (which is essentially uses the same engine as 3) there where no such anomalies with HT.
From my PoV its the same crap they pulled with tessellation back then, crysis 2 (or better the DX11 patch) was financed by Nvidia. They had the better tessellation engine on the 580GTX back then compared to the 6xxxx series so the naturally overdid that effect.
But to make it clear, I have no problem with hardware firms paying to have better effects in the game, but I have something against the fact that they use the same things to make the competitor look worse at the same time by running the same code on different hardware.
I don't know if AMD financed anything in crysis3 in any way or crytek is just incompetent... anyway they are on my list of phony game devs ever since crysis 2 for a reason.
So how would you get in game with that kind of blurriness? Yeah, I thought so ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
Whatever floats your boat, but do yourself a favor and never ever say that these I'm fast but crap AA algorithms do not blur the image please. It's simply impossible for them not to, because of the way they work.