【CPU Tests】Prey

[csbin]

http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/prey-test-gpu


1080TI

1080 SLI

FURY X

FURY X CF

 

[sandorski]

Test seems Bottlenecked or VSync On or something. More Ryzen scores, R5 1600x/1400x, would be interesting, especially at same Speed/Overclock.

 

[nathanddrews]

144fps cap?

 

[sandorski]

144fps cap?

Could be.

 

[Bouowmx]

Maximum is capped to 144 fps, but TechPowerUp says it can be changed: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Prey/3.html

 

[DrMrLordX]

Pretty limited selection of CPUs. No 4790k, no 7700k, no 5775C, no Broadwell-E.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Pretty limited selection of CPUs. No 4790k, no 7700k, no 5775C, no Broadwell-E.

Yea, used to be my go-to site for cpu/gpu tests. Now I dont even go there at all. Strange part is, they have a 6700k and 5775C in their APU tests, so I dont know why they dont use them in the dgpu tests as well.

 

[NTMBK]

Even an FX 4100 hits 60fps minimum. Nice.

 

[majord]

They tests so many CPU's (and cards) across multiple platforms, in a short period of time and people still complain.

 

[Mopetar]

Pretty limited selection of CPUs. No 4790k, no 7700k, no 5775C, no Broadwell-E.

7700k can probably be extrapolated from the 6700.

Not that it really matters. This game runs pretty good on everything. Would like to see what a low end Ryzen does though as they only have the 1800X and seeing how a 1600 slots in is probably more relevant to most consumers.

 

[DrMrLordX]

7700k can probably be extrapolated from the 6700

Probably, though we're not talking about a pure CPU benchmark here. It's interesting to see how framerates can scale with clockspeed within a given uarch.

 

[frozentundra123456]

They tests so many CPU's (and cards) across multiple platforms, in a short period of time and people still complain.

They could eliminate some of the older/less common cpus and add newer ones. I would much rather see data from a 7700k and a Ryzen 1600 or 1600x than an i3 2100 or FX 4100/8100.

 

[Topweasel]

They could eliminate some of the older/less common cpus and add newer ones. I would much rather see data from a 7700k and a Ryzen 1600 or 1600x than an i3 2100 or FX 4100/8100.

I get not doing the 6700 instead of the 7700, but I would assume this type of information is more useful to the people running the i3's and old BD's than anyone running a 7700.

 

[Yakk]

Individual CPU core use, load distribution?

 

[Spjut]

Can anyone that has played the game tell if GameGPU's test sequence is alot more forgiving than the game's worst-case scenarios?

They tests so many CPU's (and cards) across multiple platforms, in a short period of time and people still complain.

I agree. They cover alot of CPUs, and any high-end CPU that's missing could be extrapolated by how the other CPUs are faring.
If anything, I think GameGPU is doing the best for PC gaming, giving users with older/lower-end CPUs (and GPUs) an indication of their performance, instead of staying to the higher-end and leaving many users in the dark, like many other benchmarkers do.

 

[mikeymikec]

My question remains the same as on the same OP's DoW3 CPU benchmark thread: Why did no Intel ~4GHz CPUs make the list (let alone the complete absence of Kaby Lake)?

 

[Ventanni]

Great performance from nearly all the CPUs tested. Even the lowly FX-4100 was >60fps. I'd love to see charts with the 144hz limit removed though.

 

[Burpo]

My question remains the same as on the same OP's DoW3 CPU benchmark thread: Why did no Intel ~4GHz CPUs make the list (let alone the complete absence of Kaby Lake)?

To show AMD in the best light possible?

 

[mikeymikec]

To show AMD in the best light possible?

This was my conclusion as well. I just wonder why on earth they bother; Ryzen looks like a fairly reasonable competitor to Intel's recent offerings, why try to dress it up as anything more than what it is?

 

[dark zero]

Even an FX 4100 hits 60fps minimum. Nice.

So that means that Prey is a well optimized game... For basic joes it will be a enjoyable game.

 

[Excessi0n]

My question remains the same as on the same OP's DoW3 CPU benchmark thread: Why did no Intel ~4GHz CPUs make the list (let alone the complete absence of Kaby Lake)?

They probably don't have a 6700K or Kabylake system to test with. That's the impression I've gotten.

IIRC they benchmarked and reviewed a 6700K when it came out, but then it never showed up in any later testing. Probably got sent a review sample that they had to send back.

 

[frozentundra123456]

They probably don't have a 6700K or Kabylake system to test with. That's the impression I've gotten.

IIRC they benchmarked and reviewed a 6700K when it came out, but then it never showed up in any later testing. Probably got sent a review sample that they had to send back.

See my earlier post. They have a 5775C and a 6700K in their APU tests, so how hard could it be to stick in the gpu and get data?

 

[mikeymikec]

They probably don't have a 6700K or Kabylake system to test with. That's the impression I've gotten.

IIRC they benchmarked and reviewed a 6700K when it came out, but then it never showed up in any later testing. Probably got sent a review sample that they had to send back.

Ok, so let's assume for a second it's a question of lack of availability (which I question because there's a lot of i7's already in that list including the AFAIK bloody expensive 5960X, and 3970X which is Sandy Bridge-E), then they OC the most recent overclockable 4-core i7 they have to emulate a recent i7 going the speed of a stock part they're missing with a note on the review to say that's what they've done and why.

Furthermore, for someone to have that many processors available for testing, they can't just be going on review samples. This isn't someone who is 'going pro' in the review field on a budget, this is someone who very obviously has gone pro some time ago. I'd also question the idea that a reviewer would still have a 6700 on loan: It's launch date was Q3 2015. If they had recently asked for one to be loaned from Intel, surely the latter would respond saying they would prefer to loan a more appropriate part such as the 6700K or 7700K. What self-respecting reviewer would buy a 6700 instead of a 6700K? Even if they got the 6700 *and* 6600 for free, surely a regular CPU reviewer would question the point in having everything they need to review a 6700K and not bothering to shell out for the processor, when they're comparing it to other flagship parts. Coming back to the idea that they're going pro on a budget, surely one would sell the i3-2100, all the low-end FX CPUs, the Sandy Bridge i5, the SBE i7, and probably have enough to pay for a Devil's Canyon, Skylake or Kaby Lake i7, K type CPU?

- edit - I've just read frozentundra's post after yours, but it's too much like hard work at this time of morning to re-write my response accordingly

 

[2is]

They could eliminate some of the older/less common cpus and add newer ones. I would much rather see data from a 7700k and a Ryzen 1600 or 1600x than an i3 2100 or FX 4100/8100.

Can't say I agree. 6700k and 7700k are within like 3% of each other and there are plenty of people out there with off the shelf HP's with i3's in them or older FX4 CPUs

 

[mikeymikec]

Can't say I agree. 6700k and 7700k are within like 3% of each other and there are plenty of people out there with off the shelf HP's with i3's in them or older FX4 CPUs

Which would be a reasonably fair point if the 6700k was represented in these benchmarks...

NB: The 6700 clocks at 3.4GHz. The 6700K clocks at 4GHz. The 7700K clocks at 4.2GHz. ~800MHz difference. Imagine how many people would be crying foul if the 1800X had been underclocked by that much for these tests.