Battlefield 3 End Game Benchmark CPU

[csbin]

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-ehd-game-test-gpu.html

As we can see, the best choice for playing Battlefield 3 End Game is to have at least four cores in your PC. Showed the best performance processors Intel

 

[frozentundra123456]

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-3-ehd-game-test-gpu.html

As we can see, the best choice for playing Battlefield 3 End Game is to have at least four cores in your PC. Showed the best performance processors Intel

Actually thought the 8350 would be closer to the 2500. The dual core i3 also does better than I expected.

 

[Ferzerp]

The 2600k graph shows me what we would expect to happen if there is more workload to be had than just 4 cores and things are working properly.

If 6>4 in a game, but the HT cores are sitting at under 10% utilization, something is not working as well as it could.

It also shows bad scheduling on the AMD procs. They should have the highest load on every other core, and the lower load in between to match the architecture. See how on the intel pair you have between 153% and 80% per real core? On the AMD side, per module you have between 180% and 42%. This could be better balanced for (slightly) better performance potentially.

 

[Rvenger]

FX6300 has a nice showing for the price even though the threads are not being utilized properly. The more I see recent games, the better this chip is looking.

 

[Ferzerp]

FX6300 has a nice showing for the price even though the threads are not being utilized properly. The more I see recent games, the better this chip is looking.

I'm not so sure that this piece of data really shows that. It's almost exactly the same (min is 2 higher, average is 4 lower) as the cheaper, previous generation i3-2100 here, and the 8350 trails behind what was a $200 proc back in 2010...

 

[felang]

So I´m going to be away from my main pc for a couple of weeks, and will only have a core i3 system at my disposal. How much faster do you guys think a core i3 3220 is than the core i3 2100 in these graphs? I´m thinking I´ll be fine, especially if I stick to 32 or 48 man servers.

 

[Rvenger]

I'm not so sure that this piece of data really shows that. It's almost exactly the same (min is 2 higher, average is 4 lower) as the cheaper, previous generation i3-2100 here, and the 8350 trails behind what was a $200 proc back in 2010...

First of all, FX-6300 is clocked at 3.5ghz. Raise the clock to 4ghz and you will see higher results beyond an Ivybridge i3. For a CPU that costs $130, I think it has great price/perf especially if you overclock.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So I´m going to be away from my main pc for a couple of weeks, and will only have a core i3 system at my disposal. How much faster do you guys think a core i3 3220 is than the core i3 2100 in these graphs? I´m thinking I´ll be fine, especially if I stick to 32 or 48 man servers.

Not much faster really, although I do recall seeing somewhere that Ivy gave better frame latency than sandy, even though the FPS is not much different. Cant find the source though.

I think it will more depending on your graphics card.

 

[Arkaign]

First of all, FX-6300 is clocked at 3.5ghz. Raise the clock to 4ghz and you will see higher results beyond an Ivybridge i3. For a CPU that costs $130, I think it has great price/perf especially if you overclock.

True, but it would still trail the i5-760 at 2.8Ghz, even after the 6300 is clocked at 4Ghz (look at 8350, which trails the 760). The 750s/760s are also really easy to get in the high 3ghz range up to 4ghz on air.

For price/perf used is probably the best bet Though I agree, I think the 6300 is on average a better bet than an i3.

 

[2is]

FX6300 has a nice showing for the price even though the threads are not being utilized properly. The more I see recent games, the better this chip is looking.

Really? I'm seeing it under perform an i3 and a 2 generation old i5. How is that encouraging?

 

[Rvenger]

Really? I'm seeing it under perform an i3 and a 2 generation old i5. How is that encouraging?

Really? Then go on ebay and buy a 3 year old intel if you think that is good perf/dollar. I'm talking perf/$ and FX (The 6 core in particular) plays good on new titles like Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, Far Cry 3. The CPU outperforms an i3 in most metrics especially when you overclock. An old generation intel with less instruction sets is irrelevant now since they are no longer in production. If you want to compare price/performance on discontinued skus, go ahead but I am not listening. Lets just make it clear I am not touting AMD, I am just stating the obvious which I seem to get run over if I say anything AMD that is actually good.

...And try to enjoy Crysis 3 on an i3 2100, its a lag fest.

 

[2is]

Yes, really. You saw the performance in THIS game and were impressed by it being slower than an i3 and a 2 generation old i5. Perhaps you should have saved your emthusiasim for when it actually made sense to get excited, because contrary to your implication, there is absolutely Nothing promising about it here. I'd call it abysmal. You're clearly not stating the obvious since there been no less than three people questioning you on the same subject.

 

[Rvenger]

Yes, really. You saw the performance in THIS game and were impressed by it being slower than an i3 and a 2 generation old i5. Perhaps you should have saved your emthusiasim for when it actually made sense to get excited, because contrary to your implication, there is absolutely Nothing promising about it here. I'd call it abysmal. You're clearly not stating the obvious since there been no less than three people questioning you on the same subject.

It's not slower than an i3, look at the graph. The minimums that is... OC the FX to 4ghz and it should average over 60 fps. I don't play bf3 to avoid action. The only thing I am saying is I rather pay $130 for a CPU that can overclock and have better multithreaded performance. Dual cores are going the way of the dinosaur and games that are released this year and in the future will prove that. BF3 is not really programmed all that well since HT doesn't get utilized all that well as you see above. I guess this game isn't a perfect example but there are definitely better out there and BF3 has now released its final expansion so the next one very well may perform better with more threads/cores.

 

[Ferzerp]

I guess this game isn't a perfect example but there are definitely better out there and BF3 has now released its final expansion so the next one very well may perform better with more threads/cores.

So, you're saying this data doesn't really support what you are claiming it does, but there is this other data that does, and though this data contradicts your position, the other data is more important because it supports the position you wish to be true?

 

[blckgrffn]

So, you're saying this data doesn't really support what you are claiming it does, but there is this other data that does, and though this data contradicts your position, the other data is more important because it supports the position you wish to be true?

Meh, I am getting out of it "It does good at these other games, and OK in this one, and it appears to be the sweet spot in the AMD lineup right now. The i3 looks comparable here but falls flat in these other games moreso than the FX in this one."

*shrug* Maybe I am just seeing something I happen to agree with.

The FX continues to struggle to find a home. You need just the right budget (its either ~$60 more for the i5 and a crap video card or the 6300 and something gameable) for this to be relevant for gamers.

Maybe the fact that this is a semi-rational reason to buy it is win enough these days?

FWIW, quoting the entire, ginourmous OP is pretty freaking annoying

 

[Ventanni]

I see a game that utilizes up to 8 threads, but primarily uses 3-4 at the very most. I also see that single thread performance is still basically king, and that AMD core distribution could be scheduled more efficiently.

On a side note, these highly-threaded games/applications are always interesting to benchmark.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I see a game that utilizes up to 8 threads, but primarily uses 3-4 at the very most. I also see that single thread performance is still basically king, and that AMD core distribution could be scheduled more efficiently.

On a side note, these highly-threaded games/applications are always interesting to benchmark.

You do know you cannot scale linear in performance and CPU usage right with just adding cores?

 

[Ferzerp]

Meh, I am getting out of it "It does good at these other games, and OK in this one, and it appears to be the sweet spot in the AMD lineup right now. The i3 looks comparable here but falls flat in these other games moreso than the FX in this one."

*shrug* Maybe I am just seeing something I happen to agree with.

The FX continues to struggle to find a home. You need just the right budget (its either ~$60 more for the i5 and a crap video card or the 6300 and something gameable) for this to be relevant for gamers.

Maybe the fact that this is a semi-rational reason to buy it is win enough these days?

FWIW, quoting the entire, ginourmous OP is pretty freaking annoying

The problem is, when we are only willing to look at data that supports our position, and minimize anything that doesn't, we're begging the question (in the formal sense of the phrase).

 

[2is]

So, you're saying this data doesn't really support what you are claiming it does, but there is this other data that does, and though this data contradicts your position, the other data is more important because it supports the position you wish to be true?

Sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.

 

[Rvenger]

Sounds like that's exactly what he's saying.

I'm not going over this again. The numbers are not that bad. Its not at the bottom of the pack. Looking at the threads being utilized you can clearly see that it's a programming issue. (Intel's are having the same type of issue on the quads with HT) FX-6300 performs decently and will perform better overclocked and will outperform an i3 for the price, that is all I am saying.

If you want a dual core, fine, but I surely don't. Especially when I can get a 3 module/6 core CPU for the same price.


This is my last post in this thread so lets just agree to disagree at this point and move on. No sense in making this a war from my original opinionated post.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Sandy i3 would have been a much better chip if it weren't bclk locked, if haswell opens up bclk overclocking, it might just be a case of too little too late, cores are getting more and more important in modern titles.

Intel needs an bclk overclockable x3 /w HT to compete with the 6xxx chips from AMD. lol

 

[Rvenger]

Intel needs an bclk overclockable x3 /w HT to compete with the 6xxx chips from AMD. lol

I agree, it would probably blow AMD's out of the water too. Intel just doesn't have that 'in between' chip that AMD fills the gap in.

 

[Ventanni]

You do know you cannot scale linear in performance and CPU usage right with just adding cores?

Yes, I am fully aware how that works.

 

[Maximilian]

Sandy i3 would have been a much better chip if it weren't bclk locked, if haswell opens up bclk overclocking, it might just be a case of too little too late, cores are getting more and more important in modern titles.

Intel needs an bclk overclockable x3 /w HT to compete with the 6xxx chips from AMD. lol

Yeah, the nehalem based i3's were pretty awesome in that regard but people never took to them for some reason, or at least i never saw them mentioned much.