Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals
· Free Stuff
· Contests and Sweepstakes
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-15-2013, 11:39 AM   #101
ph2000
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrulyUncouth View Post
Just wanted to say that I only saw 1.7 on cinebench 11.5 multi on my a6-5200 laptop. Not to say I disagree with your point being as a10-5750m is only showing 2.28 on the multi benchmark.

Here is a quick comparison using the numbers I got on the Lenovo g505(IIRC)
A6-5200 A10-5750
Single: .49 vs .84 = +70% advantage in Singlethread for richland
Multi: 1.7 vs 2.28 = +34% advantage in Multithread for richland


I realize that Anandtech showed 1.5 on a4-5000 cine 11.5 multi but apparently that did not scale well(atleast on the laptop I had) when going to the a6-5200. Not trying to make any particular point, just show there is a solid difference, especially in singlethread, between jaguar and piledriver.
my A8-5550M only scored 1.31 (seems it throttle at 64C) tested on windows 8.1 tech preview

Last edited by ph2000; 08-15-2013 at 12:08 PM. Reason: wrong score
ph2000 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 12:01 PM   #102
Mech0z
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 261
Default

Want to know power usage of this versus a A4-4000 platform in idle
__________________
Laptop: Macbook Pro Retina i7-3720QM, 512GB SSD, 16GB Ram
Desktop: i7-3570k,2 x 4GB Ram, 2 x 128GB Crucial M4, HD7950
Server: AMD X4 620, 4 x 2GB Ram, 5 x 1TB Raid5, 3 x 3TB Raid5
Mech0z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 01:07 PM   #103
TrulyUncouth
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2000 View Post
my A8-5550M only scored 1.31 (seems it throttle at 64C) tested on windows 8.1 tech preview
Just for one more data point I ran cinebench on my alienware m11x r1. It has a dual core Core 2 duo Su7300 clocked at 1.73ghz. It scored identically to the 2ghz kabini in single core coming in at .49 with multi coming in at .93.

Whoever was saying this is so slow that people would be complaining to him about them I would say is very incorrect. I have used my m11x as my htpc for years since the hinge broke on it and it performs very well for multi-tab browsing, hd video, and light gaming. With the a6-5200 you are getting single-thread equivelant to that and twice the cores for your multi-thread.

As for my results on cinebench with the a6-5200 I did fear that some windows 8 processes may have been eating cycles as I had some weird microsoft thing that kept popping up 30% cpu usage randomly. Its possible that negatively impacted the cinebench on kabini. I just ran the tests on my su7300 and kept an eye on cpu usage, other than a few 1-2% processes all cpu was used by cinebench.

In other words Kabini is just below or equivelant to original core architecture in ipc(atleast in cinebench). In my opinion, very impressive.
TrulyUncouth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 01:12 PM   #104
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strata8 View Post
They exist. HP sells the Pavilion 15z with A6-5200 + 8670M discrete. CPU performance is still going to be an issue in some games though.

edit: It's $30 more than the Pavilion with the A6-5350M (no dGPU). Ie, the 2.9 GHz dual-core processor that throttles down to 1.4 GHz when both cores are loaded.
So I looked up the specs, it is 64bit ddr3 memory. 64bit adapters have been around for 20 years.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 01:24 PM   #105
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krumme View Post
What makes people return laptops in retail is if it can not play games. Its like either it does or does not, as mentioned elsewhere. The gpu is by far the most important factor here. Kabini in this speed class will take the most, but i guess quite a few of the new high speed BT will come back.
But don't you think AMD dropped the ball on the GPU part of Kabini? they should have given it more shaders (384 at least) and dual channel memory. At full throttle power consumption would be increased but at similar performance, probably less due to lower GPU clock rates. A single channel memory setup also impacts CPU performance (10% back in the day).

Whether the OEM's fail to SKU dual channel is irrelevant - its up to sales and marketing to find competent partners.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 02:38 PM   #106
Enigmoid
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstercameron View Post
that is quite the nitpick, 1024x768 is pretty hirez enough...not even consoles play above 720p for alot of games.
Yes but its not native res and then you have the scaling 1024 x 768 to a 1368 x 768 screen resulting in additional blur and on low settings too. Visual mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
But don't you think AMD dropped the ball on the GPU part of Kabini? they should have given it more shaders (384 at least) and dual channel memory. At full throttle power consumption would be increased but at similar performance, probably less due to lower GPU clock rates. A single channel memory setup also impacts CPU performance (10% back in the day).

Whether the OEM's fail to SKU dual channel is irrelevant - its up to sales and marketing to find competent partners.
No, Kabini is a low power low cost chip. AMD's financial state means that building more than one die wouldn't be very cost effective (they currently have three dies in production, FX, Trinity/Richland, and Kabini disregarding console) if they were going to have to cut it down so much for lower end chips.

Dual channel should have been implemented (atom z2760 has a dual channel controller and its a 2W chip). Small die size increase but massive igp gain (probably take it up about 20-40%)

384 shaders!?!?!?

That would require a massive die and would force AMD to raise prices (currently the a6-5200 costs ~$50-60: could be higher but I can't seem to find the source for pricing). 384 shaders for the most part would be CPU limited. TDP would massively increase. (384 GCN shaders is more powerful than the 384 VLIW4 shaders in richland/trinity making product canabalization a major factor given than the a10-5750m isn't that much faster than the a6-5200)
Enigmoid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 03:29 PM   #107
krumme
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,992
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
But don't you think AMD dropped the ball on the GPU part of Kabini? they should have given it more shaders (384 at least) and dual channel memory. At full throttle power consumption would be increased but at similar performance, probably less due to lower GPU clock rates. A single channel memory setup also impacts CPU performance (10% back in the day).

Whether the OEM's fail to SKU dual channel is irrelevant - its up to sales and marketing to find competent partners.
I dont think so. Its a cheap solution that really uses the single memory channel to the max and scales fine to ultraportables.
Anyway giving kabini that size of gpu would make the big core even more useless than it is and there would be no job for gf...
But 16nm version will get to the conflict here. 8 core and 512 on dual ddr4. What is left for piledriver derivatives then? And is this still produced at tsmc?

Last edited by krumme; 08-15-2013 at 03:34 PM.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 03:46 PM   #108
rainy
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmoid View Post
No, Kabini is a low power low cost chip. AMD's financial state means that building more than one die wouldn't be very cost effective (they currently have three dies in production, FX, Trinity/Richland, and Kabini disregarding console) if they were going to have to cut it down so much for lower end chips.

Dual channel should have been implemented (atom z2760 has a dual channel controller and its a 2W chip). Small die size increase but massive igp gain (probably take it up about 20-40%)

384 shaders!?!?!?

That would require a massive die and would force AMD to raise prices (currently the a6-5200 costs ~$50-60: could be higher but I can't seem to find the source for pricing). 384 shaders for the most part would be CPU limited. TDP would massively increase. (384 GCN shaders is more powerful than the 384 VLIW4 shaders in richland/trinity making product canabalization a major factor given than the a10-5750m isn't that much faster than the a6-5200)
I agree with everything you have said except massive gain on GPU side.
Much more powerful IGP of Richland (A10-5750M) dropping about 50 percent of its performance with single memory channel.

It's hard to believe me that HD 8400 (A6-5200) which is just 1/4 of HD 7750 at significant lower core clock could gain 40 percent with dual MC (15-20 is possible IMO).
rainy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 04:24 PM   #109
Vesku
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
But don't you think AMD dropped the ball on the GPU part of Kabini? they should have given it more shaders (384 at least) and dual channel memory. At full throttle power consumption would be increased but at similar performance, probably less due to lower GPU clock rates. A single channel memory setup also impacts CPU performance (10% back in the day).

Whether the OEM's fail to SKU dual channel is irrelevant - its up to sales and marketing to find competent partners.
Only if they planned to completely cancel their mainstream APU line. Die salvaged Richland's would need to be trashed. Low end Kaveri will probably have those kinds of GPU specs (256-384 GCN). I do think they should have gone for dual channel memory though, less for consumer devices (OEMs put out plenty of Trinity systems with 1 stick of RAM) but for their embedded and server SKUs.

Although AMD has basic competitive performance problems, within that context they tend to put out well balanced APUs. Temash is just on the edge of thick tablet use, 192 GCN cores would push it completely out. Based on the salvaged E1-2xxx chips AMD is not interested in the cost and logistics of maintaining multiple jaguar die layouts.
Vesku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 08:51 PM   #110
Roland00Address
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default

Oems would not care about dual channel for they are only going to use 1 4 GB stick of ram in such a cheap system, thus it would be wasted die space and thus less profit for AMD. AMD is not going to add features that increase cost unless doing so increases average selling prices.

Atom z2760 has two 32 bit memory controllers which should give it similar memory bandwidth as a single 64 bit memory controller kabini uses
Roland00Address is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 09:25 PM   #111
strata8
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Default

I wonder if adding 4 or 8 MB of eSRAM as a cache for the GPU would help any.
strata8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 10:01 PM   #112
Enigmoid
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainy View Post
I agree with everything you have said except massive gain on GPU side.
Much more powerful IGP of Richland (A10-5750M) dropping about 50 percent of its performance with single memory channel.

It's hard to believe me that HD 8400 (A6-5200) which is just 1/4 of HD 7750 at significant lower core clock could gain 40 percent with dual MC (15-20 is possible IMO).
Note that even Richland mobile (with like 600-700 mhz clocks under gaming load probably lower given that desktop is much faster) loses massive amounts of performance with single channel RAM and show major gains with increasing RAM speeds (desktop increases near linearly with RAM speeds - note that trinity/richland's memory controller efficiency drops with faster speeds as seen in Sandra Tests- this is the main reason why scaling starts tapering at faster speeds, not because bandwidth is no longer a limiting factor) up to 2133 mhz we can see that trinity/richland is massively memory bound.

Memory scaling





Clearly can see intel's memory controller scales better.



You can clearly see what happens when the 6670 (about the same performance as an a10 igp) has memory restrictions removed. 26% gain

Also remember that a 50% reduction from dual to single channel means a 100% gain from single to dual.

So in conclusion trinity/richland is very memory bound even with dual channel RAM at high speeds.

Kabini will also be memory bound especially considering that

1) Kabini systems will be more 'el cheapo' than piledriver systems for the most part. Single channel 'slow' RAM (probably one stick of 1066 or 1333 mhz RAM vs 1333 or 1600 mhz ram for piledriver). Dual channel would help.

2) Kabini, being a low power design may have an even crappier memory controller than piledriver. (Especially considering it supports relatively low speeds compared to piledriver).

3) The CPU is also using that bandwidth which given less and less bandwidth becomes a larger and larger relative chunk of bandwidth.

40% is a little high but in a lot of cases I'm thinking 20%+ easy.

Edit:

Just realized this



If we take the 7730 GDDR5 (no memory restrictions) which has 384 gcn cores at 800 mhz and divide it by 3 you get about 50% of an a10-6800k (about equal to a 6670 w/ DDR3) reduce clock to 600 mhz (75%) and you get ~ 1/2 of a mobile richland chip. Considering that kabini (top model) is barely equal to if at all ULV i3 HD 4000 (a 25% gain in clockspeed from the a4-5000 toms/AT/techreport tested to the a6-5200 would probably get 15-20% fps gain) and mobile trinity easily beats ULV i3 by more than 50% you would probably see good gains with dual channel RAM

Last edited by Enigmoid; 08-15-2013 at 10:13 PM.
Enigmoid is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 10:30 PM   #113
strata8
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Default

Personally I've yet to see a Kabini laptop with lower than DDR3-1600.
strata8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 10:39 PM   #114
monstercameron
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,363
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigmoid View Post
Yes but its not native res and then you have the scaling 1024 x 768 to a 1368 x 768 screen resulting in additional blur and on low settings too. Visual mess.



No, Kabini is a low power low cost chip. AMD's financial state means that building more than one die wouldn't be very cost effective (they currently have three dies in production, FX, Trinity/Richland, and Kabini disregarding console) if they were going to have to cut it down so much for lower end chips.

Dual channel should have been implemented (atom z2760 has a dual channel controller and its a 2W chip). Small die size increase but massive igp gain (probably take it up about 20-40%)

384 shaders!?!?!?

That would require a massive die and would force AMD to raise prices (currently the a6-5200 costs ~$50-60: could be higher but I can't seem to find the source for pricing). 384 shaders for the most part would be CPU limited. TDP would massively increase. (384 GCN shaders is more powerful than the 384 VLIW4 shaders in richland/trinity making product canabalization a major factor given than the a10-5750m isn't that much faster than the a6-5200)
the stretching and scaling aren't as bad as you are picturing.

this pricing might only be for the g-series soc and not standard skus[in relatively large quantities] but it seems to be around ~$100
http://octopart.com/ge420ciaj44hm-amd-28917115
__________________
monstercameron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 10:56 PM   #115
raghu78
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,319
Default

Kabini is ideal for sub USD 400 laptops. 11.6 inch and 13.3 inch are the ideal form factors of Kabini. Kabini can provide enough GPU power for running games like Skyrim at low settings.

http://techreport.com/review/24856/a...apu-reviewed/7

mind you thats just a A4-5000. A6-5200 will be faster

also not everyone wants to play Battlefield 3 on a sub USD 400 laptop. ideal for light and causal gaming. excellent battery life provided the OEM fits a decent capacity battery. some like Acer screw it up by fitting a 30wh battery in the Acer aspire V5-122P. seriously you can't screw AMD worse than that. a tablet like iPad 4 has a larger 43wh battery.
raghu78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2013, 11:01 PM   #116
strata8
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monstercameron View Post
this pricing might only be for the g-series soc and not standard skus[in relatively large quantities] but it seems to be around ~$100
http://octopart.com/ge420ciaj44hm-amd-28917115
AMD said the pricing of the G-series SoC was between $49-72 when it launched:
Quote:


Models available at launch include:
  • GX-420CA SOC with AMD Radeon™ HD 8400E Graphics
    • Quad-core, 25W TDP, CPU freq. 2.0GHz, GPU freq. 600MHz
  • GX-415GA SOC with AMD Radeon™ HD 8330E Graphics
    • Quad-core, 15W TDP, CPU freq. 1.50GHz, GPU freq. 500MHz
  • GX-217GA SOC with AMD Radeon™ HD 8280E Graphics
    • Dual-core, 15W TDP, CPU freq. 1.65GHz, GPU freq. 450MHz
  • GX-210HA SOC with AMD Radeon™ HD 8210E Graphics
    • Dual-core, 9W TDP, CPU freq. 1.0GHz, GPU freq. 300MHz
  • GX-416RA SOC
    • Quad-Core, 15W, CPU Freq. 1.6GHz, No GPU
Pricing ranges from $49 - $72 for the SKUs.
And I'd assume that the retail chips will be lower than that, considering the G-series are embedded parts.

The pricing difference is still pretty huge. For example, HP Pavilion 14 Sleekbook w/ A6-5200 @ $550 vs. Pavilion 14 Ultrabook w/ i3-3227U (recent IVB) @ $680. With everything else remaining the same, you pay $130 more for the i3 equipped model. Not worth it IMO.

I think HP's laptops are pretty shit, but I like that they're one of the few companies that actively include AMD parts in their lineup.

Last edited by strata8; 08-15-2013 at 11:16 PM.
strata8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 02:32 AM   #117
krumme
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,992
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post
Kabini is ideal for sub USD 400 laptops. 11.6 inch and 13.3 inch are the ideal form factors of Kabini. Kabini can provide enough GPU power for running games like Skyrim at low settings.

http://techreport.com/review/24856/a...apu-reviewed/7

mind you thats just a A4-5000. A6-5200 will be faster

also not everyone wants to play Battlefield 3 on a sub USD 400 laptop. ideal for light and causal gaming. excellent battery life provided the OEM fits a decent capacity battery. some like Acer screw it up by fitting a 30wh battery in the Acer aspire V5-122P. seriously you can't screw AMD worse than that. a tablet like iPad 4 has a larger 43wh battery.
Btw that is excellent testing methology for games reflecting user experience. We could use that at AT. How many ms in 90sek does it go below eg. 30ms between frames.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 03:02 AM   #118
Ancalagon44
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu78 View Post
Kabini is ideal for sub USD 400 laptops. 11.6 inch and 13.3 inch are the ideal form factors of Kabini. Kabini can provide enough GPU power for running games like Skyrim at low settings.

http://techreport.com/review/24856/a...apu-reviewed/7

mind you thats just a A4-5000. A6-5200 will be faster

also not everyone wants to play Battlefield 3 on a sub USD 400 laptop. ideal for light and causal gaming. excellent battery life provided the OEM fits a decent capacity battery. some like Acer screw it up by fitting a 30wh battery in the Acer aspire V5-122P. seriously you can't screw AMD worse than that. a tablet like iPad 4 has a larger 43wh battery.

Unfortunately, the manufacturers have not decided to make the A4-5000 available in anything smaller than a 15.6 inch laptop.

<- Still waiting for a 11.6 inch laptop with an A4 5000 because the A4 1250 is just too anemic.
__________________
Paul Atreides, Rand al'Thor and Luke Skywalker walk into a bar...

...and proceed to beat up Shinji Ikari for being a whiny little bitch.
Ancalagon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 03:21 AM   #119
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 臺北市
Posts: 20,094
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krumme View Post
Btw that is excellent testing methology for games reflecting user experience. We could use that at AT. How many ms in 90sek does it go below eg. 30ms between frames.
I'm not sure where AT sits in this evolution of graphics testing, but personally I feel like this is where things need to go.

I play games on my laptop, not demanding games mind you, but the hitching and stuttering is what bothers me when it happen. A slow framerate is one thing, but I can't train my mind to ignore when the fps momentarily drop to near zero for a single frame.

I hope graphics reviews continue to evolve and embrace this new area of evaluating the smoothness of graphics technology.

When you are averaging numbers, as an FPS does, the average value itself is only meaningful if the standard deviation is quite small. What we all know, anyone who plays games, is that the standard deviation for our hardware is not small.

And that makes the averages rather meaningless.
Idontcare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 03:36 AM   #120
strata8
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krumme View Post
Btw that is excellent testing methology for games reflecting user experience. We could use that at AT. How many ms in 90sek does it go below eg. 30ms between frames.
99th percentile is the better metric IMO because it accounts for both extended frame rate drops and frame jitter. It's a shame few sites except TechReport use it.

edit: Maybe an easier metric to relate to is 'effective FPS' - ie, the lowest "frame rate feel" you can expect to encounter for extended periods of time. You could calculate this using the 99th percentile times.

eg, Battlefield 3:

A4-5000
Average FPS: 20 fps
99th percentile: 71.7 ms
Effective FPS: 13.9 fps

E-350
Average FPS: 12 fps
99th percentile: 155 ms
Effective FPS: 6.4 fps

i5-3317U
Average FPS: 24 fps
99th percentile: 109 ms
Effective FPS: 9.2 fps

Last edited by strata8; 08-16-2013 at 03:53 AM.
strata8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 04:00 AM   #121
Vesku
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,911
Default

Kind of amazed Skyrim is playable at all even if at 720p at lowest settings. Looks pretty consistent to me in the 99th percentile+graph of milliseconds.

Last edited by Vesku; 08-16-2013 at 05:03 AM.
Vesku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 06:23 AM   #122
TrulyUncouth
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 20
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesku View Post
Kind of amazed Skyrim is playable at all even if at 720p at lowest settings. Looks pretty consistent to me in the 99th percentile+graph of milliseconds.
For what its worth, I know i am just some random guy on a tech forum, but I did not find gameplay smooth on my beefier a6-5200 laptop. Could have been a simple issue with the laptop I had, a personal increased sensitivity on my part, or any number of other things.

With that said if I were in your shoes I would feel inclined to believe techreport over myself- but it doesn't change the fact that in my real-world use Skyrim was too jerky for me to comfortably play. To each their own, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

In my opinion they need a turbo-boost option on all the jaguar based cpu's. Perhaps that would be enough to push it over the edge. Still badass that a $329 laptop can damn near play skyrim fluidly... Its kickass living in the future!
TrulyUncouth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 06:31 AM   #123
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,348
Default

30fps average does mean it'll spend some time below 20fps, at which point it will be borderline unplayable. Skyrim is a terribly optimized game though. The A6-5200 should be averaging 35-38 fps I guess, with lows approaching 20.
__________________
Main system - i5 2500K, Radeon HD 7850 OC
HTPC - ASRock E350-M1, Radeon HD 6310D
SiliconWars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 07:02 AM   #124
krumme
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,992
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strata8 View Post
99th percentile is the better metric IMO because it accounts for both extended frame rate drops and frame jitter. It's a shame few sites except TechReport use it.

edit: Maybe an easier metric to relate to is 'effective FPS' - ie, the lowest "frame rate feel" you can expect to encounter for extended periods of time. You could calculate this using the 99th percentile times.

eg, Battlefield 3:

A4-5000
Average FPS: 20 fps
99th percentile: 71.7 ms
Effective FPS: 13.9 fps

E-350
Average FPS: 12 fps
99th percentile: 155 ms
Effective FPS: 6.4 fps

i5-3317U
Average FPS: 24 fps
99th percentile: 109 ms
Effective FPS: 9.2 fps
That makes sense to me but i have no personal experience interpretating the results. Subjective test could be done to select the best method imho.
With time each person will know what his personal preference would be here. Do i need 15 or 45 of those seldom minimum fps.
Another diffucult aspect is where to test in the game. Take eg. Bf3. There is times on big maps with 64 players that cpu will be the limiting factor, but on far most maps and situation it tends to be gpu limited. Its quite important the games is tested under different situations or at least where many people play the game: eg. For bf3 Metro 64 players i guess is typical. And ofcource with plenty combat scenes.
Man this testing is difficult because testing consistently in multiplayer is next to impossible and will take tons of time.
I think anandtech is constantly evaluating the cost benefit of such meassures and as of today judges average is the best solution here. There is much more to it than we can know.
Hmm..., as we all have experienced average fps is difficult number to use in your evaluation. The easy and cheap solution is not there.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2013, 09:30 AM   #125
Enigmoid
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strata8 View Post
Personally I've yet to see a Kabini laptop with lower than DDR3-1600.


A huge number of SKU's don't even support 1600 mhz RAM.

(These are $400 laptops, no one is going to spend more money for faster RAM).

Quote:
Originally Posted by krumme View Post
Btw that is excellent testing methology for games reflecting user experience. We could use that at AT. How many ms in 90sek does it go below eg. 30ms between frames.

The problem with that approach is that it is using absolute numbers on relative levels of performance.





The second graph is absolutely meaningless.

Why?

Because the time spent beyond 33.3 ms is inversely proportional to fps. Higher fps means less time spent beyond 33.3 ms. It's not just a measure of consistency but also of fps (to measure consistency fps would have to be identical). Furthermore who is going to play the game at 22-26 fps? Settings will be turned down, fps will increase and time spent beyond whatever threshold will decrease.

What you ideally want is a measure of stutter per fps; a normalized measure of smoothness.
Enigmoid is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.