FX 4100 @4.2GHz Gaming Performance

[Durvelle27]

NovaBench?


12286 MB System RAM (Score: 207)
- RAM Speed: 9488 MB/s

CPU Tests (Score: 493)
- Floating Point Operations/Second: 105539984
- Integer Operations/Second: 458105900
- MD5 Hashes Generated/Second: 1195974

Graphics Tests (Score: 742)
- 3D Frames Per Second: 1974


Cinebench?

3.49 here!

 

[BallaTheFeared]

8.2Ghz that's not fair

 

[moonbogg]

in BF# my 2500k @ 4.4ghz didnt make an ounce of difference over my 3.8ghz X6 1100T @ Ultra settings, despite some people posting that in MP my min FPS will change. it didnt do ANYTHING for BF3! it doesnt matter what cpu u have as long as its a quadcore 3ghz+. The upgrade helped me with RTS games, but really it wasnt a night and day diff.

Dude, you need the GPU headroom to see the min increase. You min is limited by your card. Add a second card and its a whole different story.

 

[Durvelle27]

8.2Ghz that's not fair

lol :biggrin:

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I has cpu bottleneck.

Notice how my usage doesn't go to 100%?

As I was trying to tell you in your gpu thread, it won't even if you are cpu limited as I believe you are in your screens.

 

[Durvelle27]

I has cpu bottleneck.

Notice how my usage doesn't go to 100%?

As I was trying to tell you in your gpu thread, it won't even if you are cpu limited as I believe you are in your screens.

if i was cpu limited my FPS would have never went up by lowering my graphics settings ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

if i was cpu limited my FPS would have never went up by lowering my graphics settings ?

How much did they go up? I can't imagine much.

It's also pretty hard to pull any conclusive facts from a dynamic multiplayer game where just moving your mouse an inch in one direction can have a fairly dramatic effect on cpu load and subsequent fps.


Also don't take offense at the idea of being cpu limited, something is always going to bottleneck.

That said do you notice how I have afterburner running in my screen? This helps by providing more imformation on the situation, as it is showing my gpu is not capable of working at full str despite not having any sort of fps limitation in the game. When I combine the information MSI AB is giving me, with the cpu usage I'm seeing from Windows it becomes quite evident that my "bottleneck" in this situation is clearly my cpu.

You should try it with your setup, get the settings to the point where your gpu can not go to 99%, that will show the max performance your cpu is capable given infinite gpu power.

 

[Durvelle27]

How much did they go up? I can't imagine much.

It's also pretty hard to pull any conclusive facts from a dynamic multiplayer game where just moving your mouse an inch in one direction can have a fairly dramatic effect on cpu load and subsequent fps.

not in the pics i played through went form 40 up to the 70s and 80s while playing 64 player maps with full action and vehicles ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Read my edit

What you should do get the gpu to only load up around 70%, then run around and fight for your life for a few minutes with FRAPS recording your min/avg/max frame rates.

Simple screen caps don't really tell us much especially without gpu usage charts.

 

[Durvelle27]

Read my edit

What you should do get the gpu to only load up around 70%, then run around and fight for your life for a few minutes with FRAPS recording your min/avg/max frame rates.

Simple screen caps don't really tell us much especially without gpu usage charts.

can't do it now as i had to RMA my gpu ? also the HD 7950 is out of the question now due to some things came up so i'm gonna get a HD 6950 ?

 

[MentalIlness]

BallaTheFeared

Can you run this on your i5 ? Curious to see how they compare.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Nah that was with my i3-540.

can't do it now as i had to RMA my gpu ? also the HD 7950 is out of the question now due to some things came up so i'm gonna get a HD 6950 ?

Since you're AMD only... :'(


I played a 64 player map on Caspain Border for a bit, here are my results...

Assuming we have similar cpu performance, and I'm currently cpu bound at times, and given that the 6950 and the 470 are pretty similar performance wise at stock I'd say it's a good match up for your processor in this title.

(Performance reference)

Settings were all Ultra, 1080p, High FXAA, no MSAA, no Blur, no AO.

I didn't notice any slow downs in combat, I noticed my fps are typically lowest after I die and I'm watching someone else. While in jeeps and tanks I get my highest fps, on avg around 60ish, on the ground and in dense clutter I get around 48. Overall I couldn't tell the difference between this run and when I played on my i5, but I haven't played BF3 in forever, I only downloaded it really for this thread while I was watching my son this morning.

So assuming of course are CPUs perform similarly I'd say the 6950 is a good match up in BF3 with your processor. That would be as high as I'd go, I'd also assuming I could, get a better cooler and bring the 4100 up to 4.6GHz or so to help with mins.

Edit: Sorry mental, I thought you were asking if it was my i5.

Here is my i5

 

[MentalIlness]

Your i5 is running stock speeds isnt it ? Hell mine was at 4.0. And if yours is stock, well damn. Ill run mine at 3.1

 

[BallaTheFeared]

lolz no that's 5.2Ghz.

Stock is for the birds.

 

[MentalIlness]

lolz no that's 5.2Ghz.

Stock is for the birds.

Ah ok. Your sig didn't clarify. Was going to say though, if yours was stock and mine was at 4.0 and get beat that bad, then its back to Intel for my next cpu.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Ah ok. Your sig didn't clarify. Was going to say though, if yours was stock and mine was at 4.0 and get beat that bad, then its back to Intel for my next cpu.

Nah the 8150 and i5 are pretty comparable in multithreaded performance.

AMD needs to work on their IMC though, it's pretty slow.

 

[Durvelle27]

HD 6950 it is then ? for now

 

[MentalIlness]

Nah the 8150 and i5 are pretty comparable in multithreaded performance.

AMD needs to work on their IMC though, it's pretty slow.

Yea your right. I am a AMD fan, But I will admit the failures. And there are several.

Of course, I may just go with Intel anyway. Either Ivy or Haswell. More than likely Haswell though. I figure the 8120 I have now will suffice till then.

Durvell : Did you mean that you RMA'd your 4870 ?

 

[Durvelle27]

Yea your right. I am a AMD fan, But I will admit the failures. And there are several.

Of course, I may just go with Intel anyway. Either Ivy or Haswell. More than likely Haswell though. I figure the 8120 I have now will suffice till then.

Durvell : Did you mean that you RMA'd your 4870 ?

yes RMA'd and i'll take your 8120 ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd look for a used one Durvelle with a warranty, probably get them for $180 or less maybe even $150 if someone is dying to upgrade.


Does XFX still have the double lifetime warranty?

 

[Durvelle27]

I'd look for a used one Durvelle with a warranty, probably get them for $180 or less maybe even $150 if someone is dying to upgrade.


Does XFX still have the double lifetime warranty?

I've seen them go for $120 on here and also to your other post i just got an Cooler Master Hyper 212+ so i'm good on that ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Chip willing I'd imagine you could get there with that cooler. I don't know for sure but there are a lot of people here who can help you. Make sure you get a 2GB 6950 if that's what you decide.

You could always go higher, a 7850 for $210-$230, or the 7950 as Russian was saying.

The only real difference though will be deferred AA settings and AO. I haven't tried upping my 470 yet, actually pretty happy with 40% fan speed while playing I can't hear it but with war tapes and 5.1 you aren't hearing much outside the game anyways

 

[Durvelle27]

noise would't bother as i use a 5.1 home theater system and AA dosn't matter as i don't use it now ?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

So here, hopefully this demonstrates to you what I was trying to tell you and Russian in the other thread.

Vs

Whats going on?

Well I kept the settings the same, but I overclocked my GPU from 607/1674 (stock) to 776/1900 (overclocked).

However you'll notice my avg and min fps pretty much stayed unchanged, you'll also notice my gpu usage graph went from close to 99% for the most part but barely ever there, to almost never there. You can also clearly see the lowest fps came when gpu usage was at it's lowest.

This indicates to me, that overclocking my gpu is not affecting my fps lows, those hinge on my cpu and my cpu alone. Having a 680 wouldn't change that, no amount of additional gpu power is going to allow me to achieve higher fps, only a faster cpu can do that at this point.

However as I was eluding to before, since I have a faster gpu (overclocked) and I am limited by my cpu on the mins I can raise the settings now without losing frames. For instance in BF3 I could probably enable Ambient Occlusion and still keep the same mins and overall experience I had at stock, however with higher IQ (imagine quality). If I had an even faster gpu or even possibly with this one, I could start to enable MSAA.

The lowest common denominator in my i3 rig is my CPU in BF3, 470 or 7970, doesn't matter. My base fps are set, all I can do from here with different gpus is increase the IQ at this point.

Which was why I argued against the 7950, I don't feel a bit ol AA is worth the substantial cost, but that is just me

 

[Durvelle27]

So here, hopefully this demonstrates to you what I was trying to tell you and Russian in the other thread.

Vs

Whats going on?

Well I kept the settings the same, but I overclocked my GPU from 607/1674 (stock) to 776/1900 (overclocked).

However you'll notice my avg and min fps pretty much stayed unchanged, you'll also notice my gpu usage graph went from close to 99% for the most part but barely ever there, to almost never there. You can also clearly see the lowest fps came when gpu usage was at it's lowest.

This indicates to me, that overclocking my gpu is not affecting my fps lows, those hinge on my cpu and my cpu alone. Having a 680 wouldn't change that, no amount of additional gpu power is going to allow me to achieve higher fps, only a faster cpu can do that at this point.

However as I was eluding to before, since I have a faster gpu (overclocked) and I am limited by my cpu on the mins I can raise the settings now without losing frames. For instance in BF3 I could probably enable Ambient Occlusion and still keep the same mins and overall experience I had at stock, however with higher IQ (imagine quality). If I had an even faster gpu or even possibly with this one, I could start to enable MSAA.

The lowest common denominator in my i3 rig is my CPU in BF3, 470 or 7970, doesn't matter. My base fps are set, all I can do from here with different gpus is increase the IQ at this point.

Which was why I argued against the 7950, I don't feel a bit ol AA is worth the substantial cost, but that is just me

well your i3 is just slow then lol ?

Edit: Just because your pc is cpu limited doesn't mean mines is ?