toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
my 2500k at 4.4 was hitting 90-95% in that area and even hit 100% one time while I was monitoring it.
when I walked outside here you see it go to over 95%.
Last edited:
when I walked outside here you see it go to over 95%.
They show their benchmark, it should be really easy for people to reproduce assuming you have the graphical power to push your cpu.
They're using Very High @ 1,280 x 720 and just walking down the path in a straight line.
Never seen HT scale so well in a game on a quad core, interesting for sure!
They're using Very High @ 1,280 x 720 and just walking down the path in a straight line.
Never seen HT scale so well in a game on a quad core, interesting for sure!
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,523
- 6,047
- 136
I'd be interested in how much of a gain the 4770k gets from HT- it should be even higher, because Haswell has a wider core.
LOL. You talk about others "promoting", when everyone knows how are most of your posts.
Yes, Crytek has released a patch that upgrades the performance of Intel chips, whereas downgrades the performance of the FX chips. You can find gamers complaining on the forums. People who was gaming at 60 FPS on a FX-8350 is founding now a brutal drop in performance up to 40-50 FPS. That is up to a 50% performance loss
http://www.mycrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=63842
If Crytek is able to drop the performance of a FX chip still more with some future patch, then even a stock i3 will win to a Centurion chip.
Puppies04
Diamond Member
- Apr 25, 2011
- 5,909
- 17
- 76
I'll have to retest later, using their settings and their run I get 75 fps at 4.6GHz on my chip, but my stock is almost 20% higher than their i5, so I'm not sure stock was actually stock or not because when I went into extreme tuner it was reading stock and I thought it was already overclocked :|
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,523
- 6,047
- 136
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
I just tested there too and almost matched what they got for the 3770k and Titan with my 2500k and gtx660ti.
Min, Max, Avg
58, 98, 73.418
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
well if you walk closer to the end then the framerates will go way up so that can throw the average off. it really just depends on exactly where you stop as that will make several fps difference. whats funny is my cpu is at 95% and my gpu is at 98% so I maxing everything out. lol
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
guskline
Diamond Member
- Apr 17, 2006
- 5,338
- 476
- 126
Oh that might be what they will charge. The real question is who, if anyone, will pay that?
Jesus christ - a stock 3930k is most "likely" faster.
Yet they price it ABOVE that?
I expect MOBO costs for it will also be more expensive due to VRM requirements than a cheap 2011 board.
Holy shit.
I geuss it's good there's people like galego.
He probably thinks it's only a 50% price increase for 100% performance.
A 400 usd 9590 would have been KILLER enthusiast chip.
Yet they price it ABOVE that?
I expect MOBO costs for it will also be more expensive due to VRM requirements than a cheap 2011 board.
Holy shit.
I geuss it's good there's people like galego.
He probably thinks it's only a 50% price increase for 100% performance.
A 400 usd 9590 would have been KILLER enthusiast chip.
inf64
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2011
- 3,884
- 4,692
- 136
PCGH.de tested 8350 @ the specs of the new top FX. Measured 75W more at full load vs stock 8350 . Not bad at all- they used rather high 1.45V for stable 4.8-5Ghz operation. Performance increase is rather dramatic vs 8350. We have one benchmark vs intel parts where it's among top performers (10% faster than 4770K @ stock; 4770K can OC ~10-15% so even OCed with increased power draw it can roughly only match new FX in this benchmark). Other (gaming) numbers are Vs stock 8350 where it's 16-20% faster- as expected.
edit
note for gaming tests:
. Not bad at all- they used rather high 1.45V for stable 4.8-5Ghz operation. Performance increase is rather dramatic vs 8350. We have one benchmark vs intel parts where it's among top performers (10% faster than 4770K @ stock; 4770K can OC ~10-15% so even OCed with increased power draw it can roughly only match new FX in this benchmark). Other (gaming) numbers are Vs stock 8350 where it's 16-20% faster- as expected.edit
note for gaming tests:
Last edited:
PCGH.de tested 8350 @ the specs of the new top FX. Measured 75W more at full load vs stock 8350
edit
note for gaming tests:
Testing performance is fine because an OC 8350 will work as a Centurion, but their measurement of power consumption is not, because the Centurion is not a OC 8350.
joshhedge
Senior member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 601
- 0
- 0
Your logic eludes me.
A golden sample 8350 may OC to the Centurion levels at the same voltage, drawing the same, or similar power consumption.
I'm assuming they are just much higher binned chips of which you may be lucky enough to get one labeled as a 8350.
Agreed. Even if they are a "new batch" of chips on a more mature process specifically binned to be the 9xxx sku's, maturation of the process has far more to do with consistency than overall node improvement. Meaning, with the node maturation, AMD feels like they can get enough of the top performing chips to make selling 4.5 - 5Ghz chips a reality, even if it is still in limited quantity. That does not mean that there couldn't and probably are 8350's floating around now that could match them. Even a "regular" 8350 should be good enough to give a good idea as to how the new skus perform in perf/watt, even if it's not exact.
Unless galego, you think they have done some design tweaks to allow for better power characteristics of the chip? I haven't seen any even hints of a rumor of this and given the timeline, I would be very skeptical of such a claim. I suppose it is possible, though, if you had any info to lead you along that path . . .
Same voltage? No
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35139049&postcount=268
Same power consumption? No
So we'll ignore the fact that you linked to users...
However it remains, these will clock higher than those guys are.
Also AMD will need to validate them in a lot more cycles than forum users will ever.
Also AMD will need to add excess voltage to allow for electromigration occurrence during the lifetime of it's warranty peroid (assuming it has a warranty).
1.45v to me is optimistic, but possible.
joshhedge
Senior member
- Nov 19, 2011
- 601
- 0
- 0
That doesn't mean that a golden 83xx couldn't run at those frequencies at that voltage.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter