Crysis 3 CPU performance test

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by inf64

Wow look at the 2C/4T i3
It just shows that recommending i3 for 2013+ "low budget gamer rigs" is getting absurd. This thing should not be recommended to people who want to game on the budget and want intel cpu inside. Lowest QC i5 at the minimum should be recommended and this trend of optimizing newer games for multicore is just starting.

that's only one game, I can provide you some tests showing some new games where the 6300 is as fast or slower than the i3, but sure the 6300 for $10 more is looking like a much nicer choice at the moment.

Originally Posted by grimpr

The i3 is simply destroyed by the FX 4300 and the much superior FX 6300, i'd like to see an A10 5800, i3s direct competitor, in these benches.

5800 is slower than the 4300, faster than the 740k

[Enigmoid]

Originally Posted by boxleitnerb

PCGH:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Crysis...hmark-1056578/

Very good results from AMD, unexpected! What is eating so much CPU power that 8 threads can be utilized?

Anyone notice that that was tested with gk 110?

[inf64]

I noticed it . Check PCGH GPU test for Crysis 3 . Too bad resolutions in two reviews don't match so we can't compare Titan's score from low resolution(CPU benchmark) to the numbers from other one.

[Ventanni]

Glad I went with a 3770k! I'll have to reinstall my Radeon 5850 though when I play it.

I realized that I hardly game anymore. My fiance uses my computer way, way more than I do. So I uninstalled the 5850 and went with the HD4000. For what I have been playing, the HD4000 actually doesn't do too bad of a job of delivering.

She's said on a few occasions that my computer is really, really fast lol.

[2is]

Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared

Considering a 7970 can only get 37 fps @ 1080 /w 4xMSAA, and 690 only 58, I'm not really sure you should be using this as an example.

12% more performance at stock for 33% more $, the case is not strong in this one.

Drop your MSAA to 2X or use SMAA instead. From what I've been reading, once you get to 4xMSAA, Crysis 3 REALLY starts kicking the GPU's ass. Even in CF/SLI configurations.

[Puppies04]

Originally Posted by Ventanni

Glad I went with a 3770k! I'll have to reinstall my Radeon 5850 though when I play it.

I realized that I hardly game anymore. My fiance uses my computer way, way more than I do. So I uninstalled the 5850 and went with the HD4000. For what I have been playing, the HD4000 actually doesn't do too bad of a job of delivering.

She's said on a few occasions that my computer is really, really fast lol.

I hope you know how to turn sliders down, looks like this might be the game that makes me pull out my 560TI and get something beefier, a 5850 is going to get hammered by comparison.

[SPBHM]

Originally Posted by Puppies04

I hope you know how to turn sliders down, looks like this might be the game that makes me pull out my 560TI and get something beefier, a 5850 is going to get hammered by comparison.

1080P medium should work well enough for a 5850, no need to upgrade.

[Sherlockwing]

It seems in this game Intel 8T is not scaling as well as AMD 8 cores given that FX-8350 beats 3770K by a large margin in performance per dollar.

I wonder if the game is not as well coded for HT as it is for AMD cores. Otherwise Intel need to considering bringing hexacore down to mainstream to maintain its gaming edge in the future.

[frozentundra123456]

Originally Posted by Sherlockwing

It seems in this game Intel 8T is not scaling as well as AMD 8 cores given that FX-8350 beats 3770K by a large margin.

I wonder if the game is not as well coded for HT as it is for AMD cores. Otherwise Intel need to considering bringing hexacore down to mainstream to maintain its gaming edge in the future.

I agree Intel should bring out a mainstream hex core, but I don't see where you are saying the 8350 beats 3770k by a large margin. The difference is actually very small. I do think Intel is relying too much on high IP and hyper threading though. They really need to increase clockspeeds and bring out a mainstream hex core.

[Sherlockwing]

Originally Posted by frozentundra123456

I agree Intel should bring out a mainstream hex core, but I don't see where you are saying the 8350 beats 3770k by a large margin. The difference is actually very small. I do think Intel is relying too much on high IP and hyper threading though. They really need to increase clockspeeds and bring out a mainstream hex core.

I call 2 FPS a large margin partially because the difference in cost, so I should rephrased that as "a large margin in performance/$" as some would consider a $300+ CPU losing to a competitor's $200 chip by any margin an embarrassing defeat.

[fixbsod]

Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.

Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared

12% more performance at stock for 33% more $, the case is not strong in this one.

[BallaTheFeared]

Originally Posted by fixbsod

Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.

There is considerable outcry over the price

Many did, but that's not 12% from just HT, it's also from more clock speed. Which from what I've seen is the opposite of what happens once we overclock. Meaning on the same cooling solution a non HT i5 or disabled i7 will hit higher clocks at the same voltage and heat levels as one with HT enabled.

[djshortsleeve]

Originally Posted by grimpr

Doesnt matter since price/performance in this multithreaded game the FX 8350 simply kicks ass for 195$ compared to the 319$ Core i7 2600k

More proof that my 2500k will go down as my best CPU purchase in my life. $219 over 2 years ago...

[moonbogg]

Originally Posted by fixbsod

Umm, 12% more performance for $100. I think **MANY** people would be willing to cough up $100 for 12%. FFS Nvidia is selling their 'real' 680s as a Titan for like $1,000 without much outcry when prev gen was $500.

I cried about it before I bought my 670's and we all knew this was going to happen with nvidia charging $500 for the mid range. Anyone who didn't see it coming was in denial. What I didn't see though was the stupinsane (yes, thats a word. I just invented it) $1000 price. I guessed about $700.

[OS]

looks like moar coars finally paying off

[dualsmp]

I think the i3 is a bottleneck period for a GTX 690 regardless of whether Crysis 3 is being benchmarked. It's already been established a long time ago that when using SLI or CF it requires at least 4 cores or more.

[Pheesh]

how much overclocking headroom does the fx-8350 have above 4.0 ghz typically?

Given how much headroom you have with a 2500k and 2600k you miss some of the picture just looking at the stock frequencies. Good showing from AMD though to be in the neighborhood, even if they have to boost stock frequency and TDP to get there. That has to be encouraging for future games which invariably are going to be making use of more cores.

[Durvelle27]

Originally Posted by Pheesh

how much overclocking headroom does the fx-8350 have above 4.0 ghz typically?

Given how much headroom you have with a 2500k and 2600k you miss some of the picture just looking at the stock frequencies. Good showing from AMD though to be in the neighborhood, even if they have to boost stock frequency and TDP to get there. That has to be encouraging for future games which invariably are going to be making use of more cores.

i see ppl hitting 5GHz pretty easily with good Cooling

[guskline]

Originally Posted by Durvelle27

i see ppl hitting 5GHz pretty easily with good Cooling

5 Ghz pretty easily? I don't think so. On air up to 4.5/4.6. Water cooling 4.6 to 5Ghz but not easily IF you are concerned about stability.

[BallaTheFeared]

Yay AMD, pitty I'm so jaded/sceptical.

[boxleitnerb]

As far as I understood the author of PCGHs benchmark, it's the calculations for the grass in Crysis 3, that makes so good use of multithreading.

[Prey2big]

I just watched the video on their site. That bench sequence doest look any good.
I wonder what kind of work-load a big firefight would put on the CPU. Video game-developers needs to put back demo recording and timedemo.

[UaVaj]

+1 for the full multicore support. performance reallie shines when all core are running at full speed - especially on a slower ipc amd.

+1 for full HT support. added 6fps. i5 to i7

now only
if other games would fully support multicore.
and only
if intel had an affordable 8 core. (pretty sad to see amd 8 core slightly pass intel 4 core)
and only
if nvidia titan was $600.

[bononos]

Originally Posted by Enigmoid

Anyone notice that that was tested with gk 110?

I did, I'd like to see benchmarks with GK104s to see what sort of bottlenecking the vast majority of gamers will face.

[Gikaseixas]

Originally Posted by Sherlockwing

I call 2 FPS a large margin partially because the difference in cost, so I should rephrased that as "a large margin in performance/$" as some would consider a $300+ CPU losing to a competitor's $200 chip by any margin an embarrassing defeat.

That makes the FX 8350 stand out. If this trend continous the FX can become the gamers choice once again.