[EG] AMD CPU's performance get "massive boost" as devs optimize next-gen game engines

[Durp]

Sure they are.

Go ahead, try your best to stick with your AMD bias. Don't listen to someone who has experience with those games across different PC setups. Just believe in those half baked page hit generators by authors who don't actually play games.

For Dota 2, that Tom's article used a bot match and moved the camera around during the laning period. So at mose 3 heroes on the screen and maybe two spells being cast. In an actual game when all 10 heroes meet to fight, with all of their spells flying the game chokes on the CPU. Any vishera chip will bottleneck a GPU in the $100 range. If you need some real graphs you can check here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1397513/...u-at-1440p-adding-in-haswell/80#post_20122261

Yeah, that's a 4.6GHz ivy pulling 80 fps minimums. How much do you think vishera is going to pull in this situation? It's not pretty.

For TF2, that review is again a joke that lacks details. Most TF2 players use an FPS config that disables CPU heavy animations such as eyes, gibs and ragdolls. You simply cannot hold 120FPS without a config like this in a 32 player server. Yes even for guys running newer ivy and sandy quads.

 

[PPB]

So you are saying neither Intel or AMD can hold 120 fps on those situations. I am not really seeing the point if neither is able to suit your (extreme and thus totally irrelevant for the majority of people) gaming needs.

Inf64's point was to show that most popular games can run well with amd cpus, point me what percentage of those people run 120hz monitors. If it's a double digit one, color me surprised.

 

[Durp]

So you are saying neither Intel or AMD can hold 120 fps on those situations. I am not really seeing the point if neither is able to suit your (extreme and thus totally irrelevant for the majority of people) gaming needs.

Inf64's point was to show that most popular games can run well with amd cpus, point me what percentage of those people run 120hz monitors. If it's a double digit one, color me surprised.

I thought my point was obvious but I'll try again.

My point is that the majority of PC gamers play poorly threaded games. Because of this the difference of minimum FPS between an i5 and any vishera chip is going to be substantial. Posting a GPU bound benchmark of a game that barely anyone plays to show AMD cpus in a good light and then recommend that cpu for gaming purposes is a joke.

After my point was made, the last post was to correct him and the poor reviews.

 

[PPB]

My point is that, even tho most played games are poorly threaded, most of those games already give you ridiculous amounts of FPS already and thus if you have 80 minimuns or 150, the difference in the experience is zero for the people actually playing those popular games. I think this was also Inf64's point.

As you can see, both your and my point aren't exclusive, and in reality they coexist: only a few selected games that are poorly threaded also happen to be CPU intensive in those few threads. That intensiveness is not because of the game per se, but more probably because of the laziness of the developer, not willing in invest more $ and time into at least using those 1-2 threads to it's maximum (I hear of friends only hitting 50% Usage on individual cores in games like PS2 or Arma2 modded into Wasteland).

 

[AtenRa]

Not really. Intel seems to be rapidly doubling performance every gen of their iGPUs. Iris Pro is looking pretty good compared to it's predecessor. And with Intel's resources, will probably overtake AMD's APU's in the next few gens.

Future games will be coded for AMD APUs (PS4/XB1) featuring HuMA and HSA. Kaveri will be the first AMD Desktop APU featuring both HuMA and HSA, plus 50% more GCN cores than Trinity/Ritchland.

Intel could double the iGPU die size all they want, its the sub $150 market that they are loosing and thats 99% of APU volume. They can have the 1% of $350+ market with the huge Iris die.

 

[blackened23]

PC benchmarks are irrelevant at this point, it isn't exactly a secret that most games aren't optimized for multithreading - and those that do employ MT do it in ways that do not enhance performance, such as assigning threads per subsystem. That does not spread the workload out among all threads.

Console games are money and you better believe that every XB1 and PS4 game will be highly optimized for multithreaded and multicore capability - developers will optimize for these machines to an unbelievable extent just as they did for the 360 and PS3. If you look at the progress of prior generation console games, the level of optimization achieved is quite frankly, unbelievable. The same will happen again. Console games are big money. Whether that translates with PC ports, and i've said this numerous times, remains to be seen. The next-gen systems are using system specific tools for direct hardware access and not using API's; which means that PC ports will still be PC ports. They may not benefit whatsoever, but console games definitely will.

Frankly, this talk of i5 and AMD desktop CPU performance is off-topic.

 

[USER8000]

snip

I know plenty of people who play TF2,LoL and DOTA2(and that includes me), and a number of them run it on laptops. I am talking around a 12 to 15 people at least.

You don't need uber hardware at all for them. They will run perfectly fine on older setups whether it be AMD or Intel and this is why tens of millions of play them around the world,and if its not great smooth enough you turn down only one or two settings anyway. They are designed to scale well to older hardware on purpose since the devs want to maximise the number of users. The art style of the games also scales well with quality settings which is another conscious decision.You need to consider not all markets(well most actually) worldwide have price dumped Core i5 CPUs(or even higher end AMD CPUs) and on top of that they are much more expensive in relative terms if you consider the pay scales in most countries.

Only on hardware forums though,do you need expensive Core i5 CPUs overclocked at 4GHZ to 5GHZ to run TF2,LoL and DOTA2. If LoL needed overclocked Core i5 CPUs then it would probably not have 40 million people playing it.

Its all about E-PEEN and artificially pumping up the requirements of games it seems now,when cheap hardware or old hardware can still run many games reasonably well. We should be getting more and more people onto PCs as a gaming platform not trying to artificially make consoles look better.

 

[inf64]

PPB and USER8000, spot on .

 

[StrangerGuy]

I know plenty of people who play TF2,LoL and DOTA2(and that includes me), and a number of them run it on laptops. I am talking around a 12 to 15 people at least.

You don't need uber hardware at all for them. They will run perfectly fine on older setups whether it be AMD or Intel and this is why tens of millions of play them around the world,and if its not great smooth enough you turn down only one or two settings anyway. They are designed to scale well to older hardware on purpose since the devs want to maximise the number of users. The art style of the games also scales well with quality settings which is another conscious decision.You need to consider not all markets(well most actually) worldwide have price dumped Core i5 CPUs(or even higher end AMD CPUs) and on top of that they are much more expensive in relative terms if you consider the pay scales in most countries.

Only on hardware forums though,do you need expensive Core i5 CPUs overclocked at 4GHZ to 5GHZ to run TF2,LoL and DOTA2. If LoL needed overclocked Core i5 CPUs then it would probably not have 40 million people playing it.

Its all about E-PEEN and artificially pumping up the requirements of games it seems now,when cheap hardware or old hardware can still run many games reasonably well. We should be getting more and more people onto PCs as a gaming platform not trying to artificially make consoles look better.

I had a 2C Phenom II that ran SC2 on everything Ultra and now on my 4GHz 2500K. If there is such a huuuuge difference like the benchmarks says I'm definitely NOT seeing it, because there isn't any from my POV despite being a Intel favored game.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Is there an AMD favored game? Or does the bar consist of almost as good, worse, worse yet, unplayable?

You can turn off shadows, decrease view distance, low FoV, as well as several other settings which can help alleviate cpu performance woes.

Same with GPUs, I don't think anyone is saying you have a 5GHz delidded i7-4770k and Tri SLI Titans to enjoy videos games.

For people looking for the best possible experience in any and all games there is only one vender option, for people who don't care about min fps, avg fps, 120Hz, the smoothest possible experience, getting the most out of their GPU there are sub $200 options which can and will fit just about anyone's needs.

CPUs are no different than GPUs or any other consumer product that I'm aware of, the more you pay the less you get over the previous lower price option.

 

[PPB]

For people looking for the best possible experience in any and all games there is only one vender option, for people who don't care about min fps, avg fps, 120Hz, the smoothest possible experience, getting the most out of their GPU there are sub $200 options which can and will fit just about anyone's needs.

This part is so full of BS I dont even know where to start.

Guess those kind of reductionist generalizations appear when you start to adjust subjective values as "experience" to whatever fits your pro-elitist POV.

Meanwhile, other people's experience might involve the ability of having background tasks (such as encoding, running CPU intensive admin consoles of the very games you play like ProCon, etc) running while you play without making your gaming experience a stuttering mess or hindering your FPS.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

This part is so full of BS I dont even know where to start.

Guess those kind of reductionist generalizations appear when you start to adjust subjective values as "experience" to whatever fits your pro-elitist POV.

Meanwhile, other people's experience might involve the ability of having background tasks (such as encoding, running CPU intensive admin consoles of the very games you play like ProCon, etc) running while you play without making your gaming experience a stuttering mess or hindering your FPS.

Start somewhere, perhaps refuting it would be a good place to "start".

Are you saying a cpu with a far better front end and the per core performance of two AMD cpus would struggle with such things while the best AMD cpu wouldn't, let alone the 60 euro quad core one being marketed in this thread as the best solution for pc gaming?

 

[inf64]

I said it's adequate for single GPU in many titles and not the "best solution for pc gaming". I suppose you have to twist things around to make you feel better about the fact you shelled out 350$ for a "gaming chip+board" huh? Sorry.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Well if 60 euro gets you a processor that is "adequate" for many titles except the poorly optimized ones and anyone who says otherwise is just saying it to feel better about their choice what exactly would you call it if not the "best solution for PC gaming"?

I paid $401 for my cpu and motherboard :thumbsup:

 

[inf64]

400$ my mistake. I hope it's worth it.
I myself am amazed how fast this little cheap CPU is. That's few months after I have bought it. Still haven't found a game that's unplayable and mind you I have only a 6870 (single card but board supports CF). When I can play PS2 in 1440x900 with medium settings on huge maps with very good fps (~40fps average with lows in ~25fps), it tells you a lot. I will probably buy 7950 once Hawaii launches and prices on current gen go down. I'm certain that with OCed 7950 my OCed 4.3Ghz 750K won't be having much issues .

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'm happy for you, I used an overclocked 470 with a 1090T in several of the games I mentioned it bottlenecked my 470 well below 60 fps, which is why I dumped AMD. I can't imagine that processor is any faster than the 1090T was.

I think it's worth it, but then I run 120Hz, have two 1200MHz 7950s and a dedicated PhysX card. To each their own, certainly is nice being able to record high fps gameplay footage and then encode it 20% faster than a overclocked 8350.

 

[inf64]

Well you have CF and physx and for it it might be noticeable (vs FX or other chips).

 

[AtenRa]

Sid Meier's Civilization V. This game is one of the few that needs i5 but 55fps for 5800K is really not bad at all.

No Civ V doesnt need a Core i5 or faster. Benching in full zoom out without moving around the map is not how the game is played.

Civ V is even playable with A4-5300 single 1333MHz memory channel at 1600x900 low settings.

 

[SammichPG]

I know plenty of people who play TF2,LoL and DOTA2(and that includes me), and a number of them run it on laptops. I am talking around a 12 to 15 people at least.

You don't need uber hardware at all for them. They will run perfectly fine on older setups whether it be AMD or Intel and this is why tens of millions of play them around the world,and if its not great smooth enough you turn down only one or two settings anyway. They are designed to scale well to older hardware on purpose since the devs want to maximise the number of users. The art style of the games also scales well with quality settings which is another conscious decision.You need to consider not all markets(well most actually) worldwide have price dumped Core i5 CPUs(or even higher end AMD CPUs) and on top of that they are much more expensive in relative terms if you consider the pay scales in most countries.

Only on hardware forums though,do you need expensive Core i5 CPUs overclocked at 4GHZ to 5GHZ to run TF2,LoL and DOTA2. If LoL needed overclocked Core i5 CPUs then it would probably not have 40 million people playing it.

Its all about E-PEEN and artificially pumping up the requirements of games it seems now,when cheap hardware or old hardware can still run many games reasonably well. We should be getting more and more people onto PCs as a gaming platform not trying to artificially make consoles look better.

I've been playing dota 2 with a a8 3870k and a 5770 at 1440*900, never used a fps meter but it's been smooth as butter in every gameplay situation.

Maybe I'm not picky about sub 60fps minimums.

 

[Obsoleet]

How did you come to that conclusion? It will first of all be optimzied for Jaguar uarch and the tight timings in the console CPUs. That by default leaves the FX series out. (And the entire PC for that matter.)

Secondly, there is no way any optimizations would get anywhere the 50%+ IPC lead Intel got. Meaning the 4670 would still be the much better gaming chip in all cases since consoles will max use 6 cores for gaming. The only single time that AMD can compete is, when it uses 8 cores and the scaling is essentially 100%. Games dont scale 100% either.

Its simply another hype that this will change anything.

Like Hasbeen/Failwell? If you say so. I came to my conclusions the same way you did, looking at all valid indicators of what might very well happen- some of it really isn't speculation either at this point. We KNOW that engines will be designed from the ground up to suit the consoles for their lifespans. We KNOW this will happen because an engine is a longterm investment and they're going to want it to last.

We're going to see less load per core and much more multicore usage. This isn't going to so much give AMD an advantage, but simply reduce the advantage Intel has with per-core performance. It won't be necessary. If anything further optimizations beyond just that fact (ie hUMA, other AMD arch specific optimizations) will give AMD a further leg-up. Then consider the GPU specific advantages.

Intel will still hold certain consumer's interest for things other than gaming, but for most of us CPUs are already fast enough (even for gaming), so this is going to level the playing field.

I'm a software developer and use my PC for gaming daily. I see no reason to go with Intel going forward, until this console gen is over. I'm most likely better off going with an all-AMD rig the next time I build. For raw CPU power, I'm still satisfied with the Q9450. This coming from a triple-monitor power user who even uses VMs for development and Handbrake.

This is a huge moment for AMD. I understand the attempt to poop on the parade but unfortunately it's not looking good for those who wish AMD ill. Not good for Intel, or Nvidia the wannabe mini-Intel. I'm more a fan of the future of Intel than NV though. I see a place in the industry for Intel, though we'll start to see that become slightly marginalized. Nvidia needs to stick to making SoCs, and just make their exit as technologies like hUMA come online.

There's a lotta mad posters out there, but the console wins this time are a bigger deal as they clinched the entire subsystem this time. It's a painful moment for many of you out there, I know..

Times change. Truth hurts, but this is AMD's moment yet again. Try to sleep it off, read a book, hug your wife, since game engines will be optimized for AMD's hardware, maybe protest PC gaming and buy a next-gen console.

..oh, wait.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Intel will still hold certain consumer's interest for things other than gaming

So I heard that is a huge market for Superpi lowest scores, X264 lowest times and 3D rendering. Intel shouldn't be worried.

 

[PPB]

So I heard that is a huge market for Superpi lowest scores, X264 lowest times and 3D rendering. Intel shouldn't be worried.

Count 3D rendering out of that list

 

[NTMBK]

Like Hasbeen/Failwell?

You're calling the world's fastest consumer oriented CPU a "fail"?

 

[krumme]

Everyone and his brother will have a quad or even octo core phone in 2 years time.

Multithreadding gives us far better games for the new mobile gaming market. We should be happy about that. Its a competitive market, it gives us better user experience.

I understand Intels promoting of single core importance, because it gives them monopoly like advantage on the market. The argumentation looks nice on surface, but its just that purpose - to gain monopoly and earn some more profit. The rest is Antutu and bs all the way, like Strangeguy noted. Anyone believing Intel wants single core importance because its what is "needed" on the consumer end?

Having establised single core performance as the important meassure, that also games devellops around - or did - , gives them an unique business position. They would be stupid to give up that position without a fight.

Amd win for the consoles this time is a big change for the entire market, because imho, it paves the way for ARM smaller cores.

 

[inf64]

Don't forget AMD will also have ARM based APUs . Many small ARM cores+ Radeon GPU/compute power will be a compelling product.