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 10-01-2013, 05:55 PM   #1
soccerballtux
Diamond Member
 
soccerballtux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,748
Thumbs up BF4 CPU usage

I don't venture in VC&G much anymore and today found this which is applicable to our interests. Looks like we're finally getting on to next gen CPU resource management.



Seeing as it only uses 8 cores/threads seems clear they are targeting next gen consoles.



notice the HT on cores 2+ have no workload.

I'm rather impressed it can load a 6 core FX-6300, seems like a first for gaming.

source: http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps...-test-gpu.html
__________________
HOW TO nested quote
Install this into Firefox then click this, then click "quote" as usual, then click "Nested Quote" to the right of the title bar.
4.0Ghz&2.6Ghz-CPU-NB Ph2-965BE || GA790X-UD4P 8GB DDR800 || Gigabyte GTX670 || Soyo 24" PMVA Heatware
soccerballtux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:03 PM   #2
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Looks like it's using 6, not 8, and it looks like the 6300 is maxed out whereas the 8350 gets a pretty lofty clock speed advantage over it and two extra cores for background/os.
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:11 PM   #3
Arkaign
Lifer
 
Arkaign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 19,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Looks like it's using 6, not 8, and it looks like the 6300 is maxed out whereas the 8350 gets a pretty lofty clock speed advantage over it and two extra cores for background/os.
Could be, but another possibility is that with 6 cores, it is bottlenecked and is forced to fully load them to try to maintain performance, and with 8, it's able to balance better.

After all, it does show BF4 using all 8 cores, and loading them about 2/3rd to 3/4th of the way.
__________________
Death is the answer.
Arkaign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:16 PM   #4
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

Yes that is possible, looking at the 6300 usage it is at or near the point where it will be limiting that GPU.

Doing stupid math, if you add up the total usage of the 8350 vs 6300 the 8350 has similar total cpu usage compared to the 6300. Which could mean the 6300 is bottlenecking slightly, and the Titan doesn't have enough power to push the 8350 further, or simply the game uses 6 threads and will use 8 with an AMD GPU /w Mantle.


Which is unlikely because the 8350 is still bottlenecking compared to the Intel x6 chips.

BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:22 PM   #5
DownTheSky
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 176
Default

Then you see per core Intel is 2x as fast as AMD. Which is
DownTheSky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:25 PM   #6
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,650
Default

Kind of surprised the 6300 doesnt do better. Just 2 more cores and a slightly faster clockspeed gives 50% performance increase. Be interesting to see if mantle improves the 6300 relative to 8350.

The cpu test is kind of strange though. The raw framerate graphs are at 1680 x 1050, while the core load data is at 1080p. Wonder if that is a misprint, and if not why they showed raw FPS and core load at different resolutions.

Sure would be nice if Intel came out with a mainstream hex core, wouldnt it? Six real cores is clearly ahead of 4 cores plus hyperthreading (even though apparently well utilized) even when at a clockspeed disadvantage.

Last edited by frozentundra123456; 10-01-2013 at 06:28 PM.
frozentundra123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:28 PM   #7
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

8350 is 25% faster and has about as much clock speed over the 6300.
BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 06:34 PM   #8
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
8350 is 25% faster and has about as much clock speed over the 6300.
We're back to how you do the math I guess. If you use the 6300 as baseline, the 8350 is almost 50% faster, i.e. 60/41 = about 50% faster. However if you use the 8350 as baseline the 6300 is 41/60 or 2/3 as fast.

I honestly dont know which is the most valid way to look at it. Either way, not sure where you are getting the 25% number though.

I guess what I am surprised at is that I consider the 6300 as a good starting point for a low/midrange build, but it is kind of borderline in this game, although it is just the beta. Personally, 40FPS is good enough for me, but apparently a lot of competitive online players want 60. For that you need a hyperthreaded intel quad or FX8350.

Last edited by frozentundra123456; 10-01-2013 at 06:39 PM.
frozentundra123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 07:00 PM   #9
Carfax83
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 2,320
Default

Now my question is, if the Frostbite 3 engine has such excellent CPU utilization, why do we even need Mantle?

Native DX11 engines like Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 have no problems with multithreading, and so presumably, they aren't draw call limited.
__________________
Intel Core i7 3930K @ 4.5ghz || AsRock Extreme6 x79 || Samsung 840 Evo 1TB SSD || 16 GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z DDR3 2400 10-12-11-31 CR1 || Asus 12x Blu-Ray burner || Gigabyte GTX 770 4GB SLI @ 1280 | 7.97 GHZ || EVGA GTX 650 Ti SSC 1 GB PhysX || Yamakasi Catleap Q270 SE || X-FI Platinum Fatal1ty Champion || Windows 8.1 Pro x64 || Antec HCP-1200w Power Supply || CyberPower 1500VA 900w UPS backup
Carfax83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 07:04 PM   #10
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,000
Default

I guess for the guy having FX6300 valid point of view would be that he would get 50% more performance with 835 upgrade.

But this is just Beta and it runs awful at the moment. Check battlelog and you will see that vast majority has performance and lag issues. Hopefully it will be fixed.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 07:57 PM   #11
Saylick
Senior Member
 
Saylick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 428
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax83 View Post
Now my question is, if the Frostbite 3 engine has such excellent CPU utilization, why do we even need Mantle?

Native DX11 engines like Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 have no problems with multithreading, and so presumably, they aren't draw call limited.
What your suggesting is more or less valid if everyone had a 6+ core CPU. Mantle helps alleviate CPU bottlenecks, as does having more cores. With that said, Mantle should be most useful in computers without a lot of CPU power, i.e. allowing dual cores run as if they were 4 cores, for example. Allowing current gen consoles run as if they had more CPU power would be another example. This is not to say that Mantle won't be of help at the high-end, because it will, but the performance benefit probably won't be as noticeable.
Saylick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 08:13 PM   #12
0___________0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax83 View Post
Now my question is, if the Frostbite 3 engine has such excellent CPU utilization, why do we even need Mantle?

Native DX11 engines like Cryengine 3 and Frostbite 3 have no problems with multithreading, and so presumably, they aren't draw call limited.
Draw call limitations are only a result of weak CPU power in cases where someone coded their engine crappily. The CPU itself isn't the bottleneck, it's the overhead. You also can't just multi thread stuff wherever you want, some operations are train wrecks to sync. The real problem is there's a lot of work necessary for the CPU to do in order to get commands to the GPU. It requires the CPU to take time to switch from user to kernel mode, then revert, you have to access and modify memory, make state changes, there's some safety mechanisms to prevent crashing, you have commands that have to go through drivers, the HAL, etc; you can't directly write to the GPU buffer.

BF's utilization of many cores is mostly due to all the processing required for 64 player mayhem; you get the exact same graphics at better FPS in single player with an i3 than you do with an i7 in multiplayer.

Last edited by 0___________0; 10-01-2013 at 08:15 PM.
0___________0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2013, 11:26 PM   #13
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,081
Default

interesting results, the game is really coded to use many cores/threads, it's rare to see HT being used as much, even on the i3.

also a strong performance for the 8 core FX, but OC for OC the graphic makes me think the 2500K would be holding well against it,

also it's a shame this website is stuck with Sandy Bridge when it comes to Intel.

I think the Xbox One versions is exactly the same, and their target is 60fps

it just shows the level of optimization going on on the consoles, because I think a 8 core jaguar a t 1.75GHz would be getting around 30fps on this list, running windows.
but... fixed hardware, they can adapt the level of details, oh well,

edit: another performance test here
http://pclab.pl/art55028-3.html

Last edited by SPBHM; 10-01-2013 at 11:34 PM.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 12:12 AM   #14
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,650
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
interesting results, the game is really coded to use many cores/threads, it's rare to see HT being used as much, even on the i3.

also a strong performance for the 8 core FX, but OC for OC the graphic makes me think the 2500K would be holding well against it,

also it's a shame this website is stuck with Sandy Bridge when it comes to Intel.

I think the Xbox One versions is exactly the same, and their target is 60fps

it just shows the level of optimization going on on the consoles, because I think a 8 core jaguar a t 1.75GHz would be getting around 30fps on this list, running windows.
but... fixed hardware, they can adapt the level of details, oh well,

edit: another performance test here
http://pclab.pl/art55028-3.html
Wow, those pclab results are brutal for AMD in a game they have supposedly spent years optimizing for their hardware.
frozentundra123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 12:52 AM   #15
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 5,184
Default

I get the same CPU utilization with the FX8350 as it did in BF3.
I dont believe the BF4 BETA is using more than 6 cores/threads.

__________________
Thief : Mantle CPU Scaling and Power evaluation
(10 CPUs at default and Overclock, including Power Consumption)
AtenRa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 01:30 AM   #16
Maximilian
Lifer
 
Maximilian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 11,309
Default

Thats weird, IIRC BF3 was 8 threads. New consoles are 8 threads too...
__________________
Most unbalanced rig ever: Core i7 3930k // Asus P9X79PRO // 8GB DDR3 // Radeon 5850 // Phanteks PH-TC14PE 2x TY141 // Xonar Essence STX // WD 500GB HDD // Antec HCP 1200 // Silverstone FT02
Lappy: 13" Asus UL30A
Server: Core i5 4570 // Noctua NH U12PSE2 1x NF-F12// Asus H87 M-E // 4GB DDR3 // 4x1.5TB Samsung F2 // 128GB Crucial M4 SSD // Antec 300 // Seasonic X460 FL HTPC:Raspberry pi
Maximilian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 01:50 AM   #17
AtenRa
Diamond Member
 
AtenRa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Athens Greece
Posts: 5,184
Default

BF3 uses up to 6 threads not 8. This is the reason why FX6300 has that high CPU Utilization in BF3 and BF4. 8-core FX utilization goes up to 60%, if the game would be able to use 8 threads, the FX8350 would have more than 60% utilization.
__________________
Thief : Mantle CPU Scaling and Power evaluation
(10 CPUs at default and Overclock, including Power Consumption)
AtenRa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 02:02 AM   #18
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,081
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
Thats weird, IIRC BF3 was 8 threads. New consoles are 8 threads too...
new consoles have 8 core CPUs, but I think 1 or 2 are not accessible by games for now.
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 02:18 AM   #19
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,509
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
Thats weird, IIRC BF3 was 8 threads. New consoles are 8 threads too...
New consoles are 6 threads for games. 2 cores are reserved for other tasks.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 02:23 AM   #20
ShintaiDK
Diamond Member
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 9,509
Default

The Pclab is rather interesting. A 4770K scores ~20% more than a 2600K. And is on pair or better than a 4.5Ghz 2600K.


ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 03:25 AM   #21
Borealis7
Golden Member
 
Borealis7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,958
Default

also, very small difference between i5-2500K and i7-2600K, game uses multiple cores but doesn't like HT?
__________________
Jesus Saves. The rest of you take 2d10 Fire Damage.

Rig:
i5 2500K @ 4.4GHz / Noctua NH-C14 | GA-Z77X-D3H | ZOTAC GTX680 | 8GB DDR3-1600 G.Skill | Samsung S23A700D 120Hz | SeaSonic 650W PSU
Borealis7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 04:16 AM   #22
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,081
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Borealis7 View Post
also, very small difference between i5-2500K and i7-2600K, game uses multiple cores but doesn't like HT?
well, if you compare the stock 2500k vs 2600K from both tests, there is a bigger difference on the Game GPU test, correcting the clock and cache difference you would be gaining more than 10% because of HT for the GameGPU test, and nothing on the PClab test

so the potential is there, but it's not a huge gain
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 07:44 AM   #23
seitur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 245
Default

PurePC.pl results:

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzne...adeon?page=0,3

3930X @ 4500 MHZ and HT OFF

Ultra, HBAO and 4x MSAA




High, HBAO, MSAA OFF




PS. They are gonna add more GPUs results later on.

Last edited by seitur; 10-02-2013 at 07:47 AM.
seitur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 08:03 AM   #24
Dresdenboy
Senior Member
 
Dresdenboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 334
Thumbs up

Very interesting topic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaign View Post
Could be, but another possibility is that with 6 cores, it is bottlenecked and is forced to fully load them to try to maintain performance, and with 8, it's able to balance better.

After all, it does show BF4 using all 8 cores, and loading them about 2/3rd to 3/4th of the way.
The core load of BF4 on the CPUs in the first thread posting leads me to a different hypothesis:
  • The use of 7 threads on the i7 3970X vs. 8 on the FX-8350 implies, that there is at least one heavy additional process not started by the game. This could be some drivers, DX11 and background tasks.
  • Core load at 83% on the 2600K and 95% on the 8350 (average!, which could mean, it's often at 100%) while most of the other cores are in the 60-70% range, indicates, that the involved core is holding back the others (some serial bottleneck).
  • With HT (Intel) or CMT (AMD) this also means a slow down of both the first and that additional thread. If 2T HT performance is 130% of 1T, then both threads run at about 65% of non-HT performance, meaning 50% higher processing latencies.

It would be interesting, how this multithreading performance could be improved by applying core affinities.
__________________
Twitter: Dresdenboy
Blog: http://citavia.blog.de/
Dresdenboy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2013, 08:31 AM   #25
JAG87
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,565
Default

It's evident that most people in this thread do not know what a thread is. And I'm so sorry for the pun.
JAG87 is offline   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 04:29 PM.


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