No because we are talking about when pushed & that does not mean running a F1 car slower as that's not what it was designed for on a technical level & would be near impossible to drive as smoothly as the RollsRoyce because its built for abrupt speed & breaking & not smoothness. & that the difference maybe between having IMC & not.Originally Posted by accord99
a Roll Royce push hard will never be as abrupt in acceleration & breaking.
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-02-2009 at 04:56 PM.
That's because an Opteron 165 is extremely slow as compared to current quad-cores. Going from a dual-core C2D to a C2Q is probably not so significant given that a) a C2D is so fast to begin with and b) the C2D is probably heavily overclocked
Last edited by accord99; 01-02-2009 at 04:53 PM.
Sure but tell me one joe avarage that runs into the cpu limit?@Hornet, until a cpu is bottle-necked, you'd have to look at other factors for lag; hard drives have been suggested. Going with this line of thinking, and taking into consideration latest trends in computing - multi-tasking- one is bound to run into a cpu lag sooner with a dualcore cpu than a quadcore cpu. Of course, that a person runs into it all would depend on what they do, eg. power users ate bound to experience this more often than not. I can't remember how many times I've switched between duals and quads, but I'm currently running a quad because it is just that much smoother.Oh nooooooo, I said it!
They are not converting HD movies, while playing supreme commander and folding in the backgorund.
My parrents have a quadcore and i could swap it for a dualcore and they wouldn't know or feel the difference.
For powerusers like you or myself its another thing, as i mentioned eralier in the thread, if i run some CFd simulation i dont want to trade my Ci7 for anything else. The system is more responsive then my other quads at home get the job done faster.
if smoothness is subjective then you can't say because a cpu gets a few more frames that it is a better gaming cpu. there are so many different factors and you can't pick and choose the ones you like. the reason why so many people refuse the idea that it could actually be smoother is because there aren't benchmarks or graphs. but if someone could actually make one that made sense and put it up people might actually listen. to me the idea that a cpu can get less frames yet be smoother than another actually makes sense. the tech world is much more complicated than just a bunch of benchmarks graphs and charts. it would be nice if we could find some way to test this in games but if people just keep refusing the idea of it even being possible then nothing gets accomplished. besides im not even saying that amd is smoother. im just saying i have heard it from many respectable people that are neutral and that based on the cpu's design it makes sense. so the reason why people can just shoot down an idea or theory without any proof at all is just beyond me. it almost seems like these days theres two intel sections. and one of them is the amd bashing section.
And the major difference besides the speed on the i7 is the memory system that AMD had.Sure but tell me one joe avarage that runs into the cpu limit?
They are not converting HD movies, while playing supreme commander and folding in the backgorund.
My parrents have a quadcore and i could swap it for a dualcore and they wouldn't know or feel the difference.
For powerusers like you or myself its another thing, as i mentioned eralier in the thread, if i run some CFd simulation i dont want to trade my Ci7 for anything else. The system is more responsive then my other quads at home get the job done faster.
And CPUs are not designed to to be soft and comfortable, but rather to performs tasks as fast as possible.
The point is constancy not comfort. Comfort is one of the by products of constancy.
A bulldozer will constancy drive through wall after wall with out slowing down but an F1 car will not & because of the design difference of the 2 even slowing down the F1 car to bulldozer speed will not help the F1 to get through the wall.
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-02-2009 at 05:20 PM.
Well if the issue is the Intel CPU doesn't run as smooth, it should be more apparent in a CPU-limited scenario and not when the CPU is twiddling its thumb waiting for the GPU.
If that's the cause of the "smoothness", then it's a simple fix to get an Intel CPU to run as smooth. Just underclock it by 40%.but they do show a little bit that the phenom 9850 doesn't have as many dramatic changes which should give a smoother effect.
You misinterpret the WIC chart, VSYNC is not set all. Just the chart Y-axis cuts at 60FPS. The QX9650 running at 2.5GHz is so strong that it virtually never drops below 60 FPS while the Phenom 9850 has two areas where it drops to 30fps.and the wic one doesn't work at all because v sync is on.
The difference is a bull dozer and a F1 car aren't designed for the same application, unlike x86 compatible CPUs.
i don't know how underclocking would make it any smoother. and if the chart just cuts of a 60 fps then i don't know how it can be a representation at all. what i am trying to say here is if you have something running at a constant 60 fps and something that runs at 70 fps with dips to 60 fps every once and awhile the one running 60 fps would look smoother because the rate doesn't change. your eyes are used to the fps being the exact same and when it changes they will notice. im working on trying to find a way to test this but the problem is i don't have many games.
The the design between CPUs are different that approach the handling differently otherwise there would be no difference in performance at the same clock speed between any program & given that fact who's to say that speed is the only possible difference from one design to another.
Because that would be saying that there can only be one difference between multiple designs that have a common purpose. CRT LCD Plasma have more than one difference between each design but they all have the same purpose.
If the only difference between designs with the same purpose was always only one thing then progress would really be slow, everything has different characteristics beside there purpose & speed .
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-02-2009 at 05:45 PM.
By underclocking, the frame rate will be lower during CPU limited scenarios thereby resulting in a smaller variance between minimum and maximum frame rates. Much like how there is a smaller variance between the maximum and minimum frame rates of the Phenom.
And if you actually looked at the chart and statistics, you see useful information. Such as how the C2Q almost always stays over 60fps and only drops momentarily to 53fps, while the Phenom has two significant periods of drops to 30fps.and if the chart just cuts of a 60 fps then i don't know how it can be a representation at all.
And the issue is this "Smoothness" is not a benefit, it's a detriment caused by the inferior performance of the "Smoother" CPU.what i am trying to say here is if you have something running at a constant 60 fps and something that runs at 70 fps with dips to 60 fps every once and awhile the one running 60 fps would look smoother because the rate doesn't change. your eyes are used to the fps being the exact same and when it changes they will notice. im working on trying to find a way to test this but the problem is i don't have many games.
But that doesn't mean the system is smoother, it just the preception or better it makes the situations more noticable when the gpu becomes the limiting factor.
Most first person shoter can limit the max fps displayed, for the HL2 engien just use max_fps 60 and your limited to 60fps, or use vsync you get the same effect, but also a nasty side effect of vsync is sometimes causes mouse lag.
Hello no!
I'm bored enough and pissed enough already with my internet connection's problems as of yesterday and the fact that I'm going to suffer well until the 7th of Jan with a 50s working net, 20 sec not working, 50 sec working again and loop again.
I'm not willing to read all the posts of this topic, but I've read the first 3 pages.
People seem to be missing one of the most important limiting factors in such multi-tasking scenarios, the Hard Disk Drive aka HDD.
This is where every desktop and even the server grade SAS & "legacy" SCSI HDDs still suck, it's when it comes to multiple random read/writes in a single user and/or multi-user usage.
Don't get confused or angry if someone comes by and tells you "Buy a SSD and talk to me again", because in this case a good ( sorry OCZ Core / Core V2 series, and the rest MLC solutions with the JMicron controller, get lost, you don't belong here ) SSD can make a difference, a big one actually.
The second part and point of my post, that I'm trying to keep short since I have to go real soon is that there's no actual way to test the systems for "smoothness" as some of you call it.
But if you'd really like to "test" this "phenomenon" then the only solution that I can foresee is what people usually call a "blind test".
Build and config 5 AMD Phenom II systems, 5 Intel Core 2 Quad systems, and 5 Intel Core i7 systems with the exact same components ( except the ones that you can't really use, like the motherboard and the RAM in the Core i7 system that needs to be DDR3 ).
Configure the hardware & the software on every system and make sure the settings are the same for each one.
Mix the PCs, and have 10 people test them ( 1 person each time ) and ask them to tell you in the end which CPU is in each system.
Coding 24/7... Limited forums/PMs time.
-Justice isn't blind, Justice is ashamed.
Many thanks to: Sue Wu, Yiwen Lin, Steven Kuo, Crystal Chen, Vivian Lien, Joe Chan, Sascha Krohn, Joe James, Dan Snyder, Amy Deng, Jack Peterson, Hank Peng, Mafalda Cogliani, Olivia Lee, Marta Piccoli, Mike Clements, Alex Ruedinger, Oliver Baltuch, Korinna Dieck, Steffen Eisentein, Francois Piednoel, Tanja Markovic, Cyril Pelupessy (R.I.P.), Juan J. Guerrero
I'm sorry... if you were actually making that point it was not something that could be ascertained by reading your posts since you did not actually communicate that concept.
And you really should stop playing the i7 -- 8 thread card. It is only a quad core processor. Those 4 added threads don't help as much as many people are advocating.
You are one of the most well known trolls on this forum. Just for your information: I have read all the posts in this thread. But apparently you have not. Either that or you have difficulty understanding the actual discussion... and as such you should NOT be participating.
And now you are going to jump into your ridiculous taste example in an attempt to derail the thread even more. You really don't have a clue do you? Let me refresh your memory. WE DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT SUBJECTIVE THINGS THAT CAN NOT BE MEASURED. Does that help you? (I'm sure it didn't help because you have shown the concept is beyond your comprehension.)
I wish we had a moderator to keep trolls like you and the Zucker out of our threads.
FX-8350, Powercolor ATI R9 290X LCS, OCZ Vertex 4, Crosshair V Forumula-Z, AMD Radeon DDR3-2133 2x8Gb, Corsair HX1000W, Thermaltake Xaser VI, Xonar D2X, Water Cooling 140.3
Its not about better..its about smoother & a constant frame rate is smoother than a highly fluctuating one & we are not taking about the possible side effect of obtaining smooth fps through cap or sync.But that doesn't mean the system is smoother, it just the preception or better it makes the situations more noticable when the gpu becomes the limiting factor.
Most first person shoter can limit the max fps displayed, for the HL2 engien just use max_fps 60 and your limited to 60fps, or use vsync you get the same effect, but also a nasty side effect of vsync is sometimes causes mouse lag.
The smoothness could be because of the design & not because of its performance in speed because the definition of performance is not limited to speed.
The problem is that most people only focus on its speed & nothing else & that's ok but that does not mean that everyone must only care about that if the characteristics of a slower design handles curtain aspects better then its not a detriment of the design but a positive by product of the design as the speed is the limitation of the design & not the purpose of the design to limit speed.
So you could say that its an inferior design when it comes to overall speed, because you cant say its inferior design when it comes everything as there would have to be no links able to show the design doing better ant anything.
The Althlon was an inferior design to the P4 when it came to obtaining high GHz but overall the Althlon was the better design unless GHz iwas a priority & not speed in computation.
No one here is saying that the Intel is not the faster design, WE ALL know that. but that does not mean the design is better at everything some people want to find out & some don't & those that don't are not forced to be here.
I personally don't care if its smoother or not but im not going to stop others from trying to find out nether do i like others trying to stop them.
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-02-2009 at 06:56 PM.
i thought about that but its too expensive to actually try. if you already have a bunch of computers with each cpu it could be done and instead of them naming the cpu they could just say which one looks "smoother". but no matter what the results are people will argue it because they will say its opinion based or that they changed up the results.
one thing that is nice is that fraps will log when every frame is recieved in milliseconds. the frame number at the 1000 millisecond mark would be the fps at that time. you can then look at the difference in time between each frame received until you hit the 1000 millisecond mark. if the difference between the time received of the frames are all the same then it should look smooth. but if they are all rates and the fps is the same as the one with the frames coming at the same rate then it won't look as smooth. if someone can find a way to test this where the cpus would have an equal amount of fps throughout then it might be able to be tested.
@keithlm hornet isn't trolling btw.
But its what happens, just look at the max/min fps for Phenom/C2, they are sometimes huge on the C2 and not as high on the Phenom. Meaning that Phenom is limiting the graphics card eralier then a C2.
If smoothness in games steams from that huge discrepancies between max and min fps, then its possible to optain the same smoothness on both systems with a simple checkbox and all that discussion was pointless.
Cause you optain exactly that, a smooth constant fps distribution, if you limit the fps to a ceratin maximum.
No, let me help you,
You try to quantify something that is in the so called "eye of the beholder" aka subjective preception.
Why do you think theres such a huge debate about what fps rate is visible to the human eye or can be seen etc. and what not...
This is exactly the same.
Again what data do you want to use, that isn't already there?
We have fps (outlines over time) max/min avg. yet they give no clue about whats smoother and whats not.
Just look at the graphs accord99 linked to, according to some theories in this thread the INTEL quadcore should be smoother then then the AMD quad.
The only thing so far you have suggested so far is to run a benchmark and then run several other activities in the background and see who does better.
That dont addresses the so called smoothness, this adresses the multitasking capabilities of a system.
Cause the thing thats always said about smoothness in conjunction with amd rigs is, that this systems are more smooth while daily work/gaming.
I dont think many gamers run havy tasks in the background when they want to game for some hours. So where do these smoother feeling steam from?
A bit OT:
Its funny that you accuse all people of trolling that dont agree with you imidiantly on your goal/opinion. They are people that have had quite some experience with different systems, yet they say things that are simmilar to what i say? All trolls and intel fanboys.... i dont think so.
Oh and please cut that name calling and shouting... you want to keep the thread clean and your the only one shouting and calling out pwople trolls...
Last edited by Hornet331; 01-02-2009 at 06:52 PM.
its not just the min and max its what is happening every single second not just during two different times during the bench.
if someone with a core 2 could run fraps and record the frames times and run 3d mark 06 it would be nice. then you could see the differences between each frame instead of just the fps values.
It is not about the CPU. It is about the whole platform. No one can measure it. No one can prove it. No one has to believe it.
maybe so but even if it is the whole platform you can't see amd cpus running intel chipsets and intel cpus running amd chipsets. if it comes down to the entire platform you can argue it that way as well that one side would still be smoother. so even if intel gets more fps if amds platform can put it together better and make it look smoother then thats it.
True.
Before Throwed or whoever you are come and flame me off, I must tell that my older brother told me that when he switched from 3000+ Barton to 3000+ NewCastle, he told me how the NC was way faster and had no lags anywhere. He said it felt smoother. However, to burst the bubble, I must say that any fresh installation of Windows always feels smooth regardless of hardware. Even old P2 @ 266 feels "smooth" when opening start-menu and MyComputer etc.
yes but during games the hdd has way less of an effect than it does during the windows desktop.
This depends on a game and how the memory is being managed.
In games there isn't much crucial memory transfers(else the mem timings and speed would matter and hugely influence the smoothness, again, it would the platform and not the CPU), thus the IMC can't be used as a reason for smoothness.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks