Ashes of The Singularity DX11 vs DX12 - R9 Nano

[AtenRa]

No, the exceptional value is to get an i3 6100. Assuming you dont sit with a previous i3.

yeap exceptional value

StarWars Battlefront Beta Hoth 20 player MP.
I wouldn't want the i3 even if they would give it for free.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Eh. You're trying to gloss over the fact that AMD has had problems releasing new product by focusing on technology from years ago. People compare Vishera to Skylake because AMD has (generally) not released anything faster than Vishera. Kaveri technically has more power under the , hood, but to dateonly a tiny number of software developers have bothered to avail themselves of that power.

You're comment is correct, but it was not the subject my post brought up, nor the point of it. Instead, this was my point:

It would be more interesting to compare the older [4M/8T FX8350] AMD Bulldozer CPUs with the older Intel CPUs available at the time those AMD CPUs were released. But doing that comparison using DX12, and the latest SW and games. Then we could get a better picture of how competitive AMD's Bulldozer architecture would have been if SW would have been available at time of release to make use of its full potential.

I.e. maybe the FX CPUs such as FX8350 did not get a fair chance, since the SW available at that time did not make use of its full multi-core potential.

Now AMD has not released any 4 Module / 8 Thread follow-up to those CPUs for 3 years. So if we compare it to the latest Intel CPUs, then obviously it will not keep up. But that does not say much about how competitive it could have been at the time of release, if different SW had been available back then. To figure that out, the FX8350 will have to be compared to the Intel CPUs available back then, but with the latest SW.

Finally, the good that has come out of this is that when AMD Zen is released, Bulldozer has at least already paved the way for better multi-core support in SW. So SW should be able to make better use of the 8 cores in Zen already from the start.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of course that is not even a true i3 but an artificially gimped quad core. In addition, it is 3generations and 2 architecture revisions older than skylake, in the beta of one game heavily optimized by AMD. Yep, solid evidence of the superiority of the FX.

BTW, do you have a link to that data?

 

[BigDaveX]

I.e. maybe the FX CPUs such as FX8350 did not get a fair chance, since the SW available at that time did not make use of its full multi-core potential.

Now AMD has not released any 4 Module / 8 Thread follow-up to those CPUs for 3 years. So if we compare it to the latest Intel CPUs, then obviously it will not keep up. But that does not say much about how competitive it could have been at the time of release, if different SW had been available back then. To figure that out, the FX8350 will have to be compared to the Intel CPUs available back then, but with the latest SW.

Even if the FXes outperformed their Sandy/Ivy Bridge-based counterparts from when they were released - and from encoding and rendering benchmarks that we did see at the time of release, I would guess that at best they'd just be roughly equal, but with the FXes eating a lot more power -that only goes to show why the FX was a failure in implementation. You can't release a chip that's so clearly inferior at the time of its release and hope that people will buy it based on some nebulous amount of potential that it might have.

To use an analogy, imagine if the Athlon 64 had only performed about as well as the Athlon XP when it was released, and needed 64-bit code to get the performance levels we actually ended up seeing. Do you think it'd have been anywhere near as successful as it was?

 

[Fjodor2001]

Even if the FXes outperformed their Sandy/Ivy Bridge-based counterparts from when they were released - and from encoding and rendering benchmarks that we did see at the time of release, I would guess that at best they'd just be roughly equal, but with the FXes eating a lot more power -that only goes to show why the FX was a failure in implementation. You can't release a chip that's so clearly inferior at the time of its release and hope that people will buy it based on some nebulous amount of potential that it might have.

To use an analogy, imagine if the Athlon 64 had only performed about as well as the Athlon XP when it was released, and needed 64-bit code to get the performance levels we actually ended up seeing. Do you think it'd have been anywhere near as successful as it was?

I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I just think it's interesting to see how competitive the FX8350 could have been if SW utilizing its full potential had been available at the time it was released. That's all. You're reading more into my post than I intended.

 

[Kuiva maa]

AotS is compiled with ICC afaik. Of course it will run like a dog on AMD cpus. I expect DX12 games with CPU Agnostic compilers to work nicely in every CPU out there that is not more than 5 years old.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The OP linked a video showing the 7870k vs. a 4690k. Two 4t processors, head to head. Naturally the 4690k wins in DX11 and DX12, but the AMD chip gains more ground going to DX12. ShintaiDK responds with a benchmark suite with no minimum framerates and a different GPU that doesn't include either CPU used in the linked vid as a refutation of the video author's credibility.

Sorry, the data's mostly unrelated. There's no control for valid comparison.

That video might still be complete crap, but the only way to refute it is to show that the methods used were invalid, or to reproduce the same comparison and show statistically-significant differences in results. I don't know if DX12 really favors 6-8 core CPUs over 2-4 core CPUs, and judging by the results we see on i3s I'm beginning to think that that may not necessarily be the case. If there's anything that's gonna make a 7870k beat an 8370 in Ashes of the Singularity, it's going to be superior architecture and higher clockspeed. AotS seems to do just fine on 2c/4t and 2m/4t chips.

Also, if you read the video commentary, you'll notice that the author of the video claims that the studio will be introducing GPGPU acceleration for GCN iGPUs (at least; hopefully they'll support Gen8/Gen9 iGPUs as well) in the AotS beta. If that's true, I would expect Kaveri APUs to smoke any FX processor. And no, I would not expect them to use the iGPU to handle dGPU draw calls . . .



Eh. You're trying to gloss over the fact that AMD has had problems releasing new product by focusing on technology from years ago. People compare Vishera to Skylake because AMD has (generally) not released anything faster than Vishera. Kaveri technically has more power under the , hood, but to dateonly a tiny number of software developers have bothered to avail themselves of that power.

The point is, in the published benchmark shown by Shintai, under DX12, an i3 is faster than an FX 8350. Unfortunately they dont show a 4770k, but quad skylake is in the range of 50% or more faster than the i3. That you tube video shows a 7870k almost as fast as the 4670k, which simply does not make sense(it would mean the 7870k is as fast as the 8350). If it is true, then it certainly means that the FX needs more than simply "moar cores" to be competitive, even under DX12.

 

[TheELF]

Nope a current I3 is not on the same level as a current celleron.

Youtube video

 

[frozentundra123456]

AotS is compiled with ICC afaik. Of course it will run like a dog on AMD cpus. I expect DX12 games with CPU Agnostic compilers to work nicely in every CPU out there that is not more than 5 years old.

Ow wow, just wait for DX12. AMD cpus will run great. A DX12 game fails to show this. Oh wait, this is not the *right* DX12. Okay........... if you say so.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Always another excuse. Now its compiler from an AMD sponsored game

 

[TheELF]

That you tube video shows a 7870k almost as fast as the 4670k, which simply does not make sense(it would mean the 7870k is as fast as the 8350).

Not exactly, the video shows the 4670 reaching 80 something FPS avg in dx12 mode with ~100% GPU bottleneck.
It's still twice as fast as the 7870 but the GPU can't keep up.
And again this is just benchmark mode where the program can use all CPU resources independent of game code.

 

[frozentundra123456]

OK, I must have looked at the numbers wrong. I think I confused the DX 11 and DX 12 numbers for the 4690k.

 

[Kuiva maa]

Always another excuse. Now its compiler from an AMD sponsored game

It is not an excuse but a historical trend (icc with via/AMD processors). For many years my advice to parties interested in running icc software has been the same. Get Intel. Aots will be no different.And of course there have been several GE titles unfriendly to AMD CPUs since GE is just the equivalent of twimtbp/GW and pertains to GPUs above all. Why AMD accepts that is none of my concerns.

 

[Erenhardt]

Pointless arguing is pointless.
It is all about opmitization.

To see how all CPUs should stack just look at some synthetic CPU benchmarks like Cinebench:

Perfectly optimized games should have CPU hierarchy the same as CB MultiThread benchmark.
Sadly, a lot of games are closer to CB SingleThread benchmark.

i3-6100 is 60% faster in ST but fx8350 is 60% faster in MT.

When games are half as optimized as they could, we would see a parity between fx8350 and i3-6100
When games become more optimized than not, fx8350 will be up to 60% faster then i3-6100.

It is quite easy concept to grasp.

 

[jpiniero]

That level of thread scaling seems pretty unlikely though. Ashes in this case only seems to really use 4 threads.

 

[Sweepr]

Yes, it's quite easy to grasp that Vishera is so awful that even with 3-4x the number of cores a lowly Core i3 is matching/beating it in many PS4/X1-era titles. Keep the excuses coming though.

Nobody sane would buy a FX to play games today, unless you're doing a cheap upgrade from an older AMD chip.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

ICC is a really good x86 compiler, so good in fact that after Intel stopped disabling certain SIMD optimizations on AMD CPUs code compiled with ICC on AMD has been shown to sometimes be faster than code compiled with visual studio.

 

[TheELF]

When games are half as optimized as they could, we would see a parity between fx8350 and i3-6100
When games become more optimized than not, fx8350 will be up to 60% faster then i3-6100.

It is quite easy concept to grasp.

Thing is, they couldn't.
Games are sequential by nature.

 

[dark zero]

At what point should you get censured for outright lying in this forum...?

Care to show benchmarks of the Broadwell Iris Pro matching R7 270X?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Since GTX 750 = 270X in performance, we might deduce that Iris Pro from Broadwell is having good time here, getting better minimuns than the 750.

So Skylake Iris Pro might have FAR better performance and even defeat them.

 

[Erenhardt]

Thing is, they couldn't.
Games are sequential by nature.

Everything is sequential by nature. I mean everything. Even CB is sequential by nature, but it was optimized to run in parallel on multiple threads.

Also, there are games that are above the equilibrium point where i3=fx8350.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Since GTX 750 = 270X in performance, we might deduce that Iris Pro from Broadwell is having good time here, getting better minimuns than the 750.

So Skylake Iris Pro might have FAR better performance and even defeat them.

Haha. Gtx750, such a fail of a card, barely faster than r7 250 - AKA a cut down 7750 which is already a cut down 7770 which was released when my grandfather was dating my grandmother. Try harder

 

[frozentundra123456]

Pointless arguing is pointless.
It is all about opmitization.

To see how all CPUs should stack just look at some synthetic CPU benchmarks like Cinebench:

Perfectly optimized games should have CPU hierarchy the same as CB MultiThread benchmark.
Sadly, a lot of games are closer to CB SingleThread benchmark.

i3-6100 is 60% faster in ST but fx8350 is 60% faster in MT.

When games are half as optimized as they could, we would see a parity between fx8350 and i3-6100
When games become more optimized than not, fx8350 will be up to 60% faster then i3-6100.

It is quite easy concept to grasp.

"Should" statements are just as pointless. "Should" really means nothing, except in what one person believes should be reality. The performance "is what it is". What you think it "should" be is really irrelevant. Maybe if it is so easy to program a game where FX is 60% faster than an i3, you "should" go work for AMD and program that game for them. We have been hearing this tired old "just wait till games are optimized for FX" for years, with very little change.

 

[Erenhardt]

"Should" statements are just as pointless. "Should" really means nothing, except in what one person believes should be reality. The performance "is what it is". What you think it "should" be is really irrelevant. Maybe if it is so easy to program a game where FX is 60% faster than an i3, you "should" go work for AMD and program that game for them. We have been hearing this tired old "just wait till games are optimized for FX" for years, with very little change.

Actually, quite the change is not little by any means.

As a side note, amd doesn't program games, you SHOULD educate yourself.

 

[TheELF]

Everything is sequential by nature. I mean everything. Even CB is sequential by nature, but it was optimized to run in parallel on multiple threads.

No it's not,nobody cares if the bottom left piece will be finished before the top left one,in fact every little piece that cb renders could be rendered in a completely random order and the final product would still look exactly the same.

In a game on the other hand you would care a lot if you would gt the game over screen before getting shot.

Also, there are games that are above the equilibrium point where i3=fx8350.

Yes there are such games,but do they run faster then the others?
No they just have more stuff going on on screen at once but have the same FPS or even lower.
-Still not faster-

 

[mrmt]

The problem is that it was a long time ago since the 4 Module / 8 Thread Bulldozer CPUs like FX8350 were released. Now people compare old AMD Bulldozer CPUs with the latest Intel CPUs, which is not fair.

Why it is not fair? Consumers and oems don't have much of a choice except to make this unfair comparison if they want to buy processors today. People also made the same comparison in the past, that's why AMD decided to discontinue the development of the Bulldozer family.

 

[dark zero]

Also...why people are still comparing with nonexistant AMD current generation CPU's?
AMD has nothing to offer since Intel's 4th generation!