amd fx cpus were future proof...

[ShintaiDK]

You're the one who makes every AMD thread personal by spreading in them with your negativity all the time buddy. The dedication is amazing

That article is just Phil Spencer saying that DX12 will not offer much in terms of performance increases but it will for sure. It will be be dependant on game engines and how devs will be able to take advantage of the added opportunities

So you acknowledge that Pill Spencer, Corproate VP and head of MS Studios, says that DX12 wont offer much on the Xbox One.

Then you suddenly take a completely difference stance contradicting this. And then you talk about me? Really?

 

[Gikaseixas]

You unsurprisingly missed the context again.

Actually i didn't. Just ignore Intel scores and you'll see what i mean

 

[ShintaiDK]

Just going by the chart he posted. FX4100 does has a minimum of 67fps there. He's trying to prove someone wrong but in fact what he did was to prove him right because every cpu in that chart runs that game very well. Check the post again please

You missed 2 factors completely. First of all the context was about CPU scaling. Secondly the benchmark is made in single player.

So while they dont have a 4100 but 4300 instead. It already went from 67 to 29.

 

[Gikaseixas]

So you acknowledge that Pill Spencer, Corproate VP and head of MS Studios, says that DX12 wont offer much on the Xbox One.

Then you suddenly take a completely difference stance contradicting this. And then you talk about me? Really?

Yes he said it but does that means we won't see better performance at all? That small improvement will only grow once devs understand the API a bit better.

And no, i'm not saying it will benefit only AMD, it will do the same for Intel

 

[Gikaseixas]

You missed 2 factors completely. First of all the context was about CPU scaling. Secondly the benchmark is made in single player.

So while they dont have a 4100 but 4300 instead. It already went from 67 to 29.

See, you had to go dig another test just to make a point, LOL
FX 9 and 8xxx series do perform much better than FX 4xxx. The scaling is there. It's your own fault for posting a single player chart, not mine

 

[ShintaiDK]

See, you had to go dig another test just to make a point, LOL
FX 9 and 8xxx series do perform much better than FX 4xxx. The scaling is there. It's your own fault for posting a single player chart, not mine

And the scaling is what? 30% from FX4300 to FX8350? More like 25% if we remove the speed difference.

Thats not great scaling at all. But again we already knew from the other benchmark that you started to go out of context from.

 

[AtenRa]

That's not quite accurate information. For online gameplay ... BF4 included the FX CPUs have frame drops and inconsistent frame rates over time.

BF4 with FX8350@4.5GHz Mantle and 120fps Cap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADaALZ0RWDA

 

[Gikaseixas]

And the scaling is what? 30% from FX4300 to FX8350? More like 25% if we remove the speed difference.

Thats not great scaling at all. But again we already knew from the other benchmark that you started to go out of context from.

The two best performers are an i7 @ 4500mhz and a i5 @ 4500mhz too. They perform almost similar, even with one of them having more threads. FX is showing better scaling no?

The issue is that you focus too much to find fault on certain products and fail miserably at doing so.

 

[PC Master Race]

source/link please else quit misleading people.

It's common knowlage that BF4 64 players online takes a bit more CPU grunt than an FX 4300 can deliver if you are after good smooth performance. I should not have to spoon feed you guys so please do your research yourself. There's to many parameters for online play to satisfy AMD apologists like yourself.

 

[PC Master Race]

BF4 with FX8350@4.5GHz Mantle and 120fps Cap.

That was an FX 4300 ? Oh it was an 8350 ... please take a seat and stop being an AMD apologist please.

 

[AtenRa]

That was an FX 4300 ? Oh it was an 8350 ... please take a seat and stop being an AMD apologist please.

Seams you dont remember what you said, let me remind you.

That's not quite accurate information. For online gameplay ... BF4 included the FX CPUs have frame drops and inconsistent frame rates over time.

I dont see you mentioning the FX4300 specifically but the FX in general

 

[parvadomus]

Do your really think BF4 is a good example?

OFC. but that is not running DX12/mantle. :awe:

 

[ShintaiDK]

OFC. but that is not running DX12/mantle. :awe:

It dosent really change the scaling factor does it?

Phenom X4 to Phenom X6 with same clocks scales 18% in DX11 and 13.5% in Mantle at 1280*720 to remove any other bottlenecks. Looking past benchmark variance in multiplayer we can say they both scale roughly 15% from 50% more CPU power.

 

[monstercameron]

It's common knowlage that BF4 64 players online takes a bit more CPU grunt than an FX 4300 can deliver if you are after good smooth performance. I should not have to spoon feed you guys so please do your research yourself. There's to many parameters for online play to satisfy AMD apologists like yourself.

Yeah sure make stuff up...reverse galego!

 

[spat55]

FX is only relevant because of the price.

This they are still good when your budget is £100 but after that a i5 really does look tasty.

 

[parvadomus]

It dosent really change the scaling factor does it?

Phenom X4 to Phenom X6 with same clocks scales 18% in DX11 and 13.5% in Mantle at 1280*720 to remove any other bottlenecks. Looking past benchmark variance in multiplayer we can say they both scale roughly 15% from 50% more CPU power.

It obviously does. Like the chart posted:

Pentium G becomes garbage even vs a core 2 quad. You can spread the workload over all cores.
But better we wait and see, im sure i3s will come down to athlon x4s/apus level using DX12, and FX6/FX8 will go to between i5 and i7 levels.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It obviously does. Like the chart posted:

Pentium G becomes garbage even vs a core 2 quad. You can spread the workload over all cores.
But better we wait and see, im sure i3s will come down to athlon x4s/apus level using DX12, and FX6/FX8 will go to between i5 and i7 levels.

Got any other source than AtenRas own numbers that he combined from who knows what?

Not that I even have to mention Thief is prescripted.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It obviously does. Like the chart posted:

Pentium G becomes garbage even vs a core 2 quad. You can spread the workload over all cores.
But better we wait and see, im sure i3s will come down to athlon x4s/apus level using DX12, and FX6/FX8 will go to between i5 and i7 levels.

Even in the chart you are showing pentium is withing 20% of top of the line, and i3 is equal to the best from AMD or intel. Of course that is one of Aten's infamous GPU limited charts use to "evaluate" cpu performance, so it is difficult to tell anything.

I agree pentium will be substandard, but I highly doubt the Athlon x4 is going to ascend to i3 levels. At the top end, we have seen overall, under mantle that 8350 comes close to i5, while i7 is faster than either. But that is with current architectures. As I earlier, intel will be on Skylake and nearing cannonlake by the time DX12 comes out (edit: meant becomes mainstream), so the results may be different.

 

[TheELF]

Pentium G becomes garbage even vs a core 2 quad. You can spread the workload over all cores..

Exactly what is garbage about having ~2fps slower average frame rate?
So th G dips 10fps lower than the quad but since it keeps the average at the same level it means that it also has higher maximum FPS then the quad.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The main problem with the pentium is that some current console ports wont even run on non-HT dual cores. I am not advocating Pentium as a gaming cpu, unless you are focusing on certain highly single threaded games, but certainly nothing in the chart posted by parvadomus would justify calling it "garbage". The game looks perfectly playable to me. And that is not even the 3258 overclocked, but just a garden variety stock pentium.

 

[monstercameron]

The main problem with the pentium is that some current console ports wont even run on non-HT dual cores. I am not advocating Pentium as a gaming cpu, unless you are focusing on certain highly single threaded games, but certainly nothing in the chart posted by parvadomus would justify calling it "garbage". The game looks perfectly playable to me. And that is not even the 3258 overclocked, but just a garden variety stock pentium.

Interesting sentiment, what I can't understand is that when it comes to amd parts some posters can't have such a response.

 

[TheELF]

With an G1820 celeron!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW2eGxMJdKA dragon age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKrlFABd4c farcry4
Game companies are just too lazy to do proper ports,but that was always the case...
One is practically forced to use illegal means to play the games.

 

[Enigmoid]

Even in the chart you are showing pentium is withing 20% of top of the line, and i3 is equal to the best from AMD or intel. Of course that is one of Aten's infamous GPU limited charts use to "evaluate" cpu performance, so it is difficult to tell anything.

I agree pentium will be substandard, but I highly doubt the Athlon x4 is going to ascend to i3 levels. At the top end, we have seen overall, under mantle that 8350 comes close to i5, while i7 is faster than either. But that is with current architectures. As I earlier, intel will be on Skylake and nearing cannonlake by the time DX12 comes out (edit: meant becomes mainstream), so the results may be different.

Yeah, the charts are almost irrelevant. Not even hitting 50 fps.

 

[nemesismk2]

i still really like AMD processor and own amd fx 4300, amd fx 8350 and amd athlon ii x2 270.

 

[PC Master Race]

To many AMD CPU apologists.