FX9590 battlefield 4 beta cpu test
- Thread starter csbin
- Start date
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Yep, 9370 overclocked beyond stock 9590 profile.
9590 is 4.7Ghz w/5Ghz Turbo. That "bench" is a 9370 locked at 5Ghz. Not to mention the results as a whole look super shady. We'll have final game benches from reputable sites soon.
And regardless, 9590 is ludicrously stupid. 8350 for a fraction of the cost will be 95% as good, and 200% better if the money saved goes towards better GPU anyway.
9590 is 4.7Ghz w/5Ghz Turbo. That "bench" is a 9370 locked at 5Ghz. Not to mention the results as a whole look super shady. We'll have final game benches from reputable sites soon.
And regardless, 9590 is ludicrously stupid. 8350 for a fraction of the cost will be 95% as good, and 200% better if the money saved goes towards better GPU anyway.
any reason to test new overclocked AMD CPU against stock sandy bridge? I mean, 5GHz FX is pretty much the limit, and (stock) 2500/2600K are older than llano:\
better also visit the PCgameshardware and PClab test to have a better idea.
better also visit the PCgameshardware and PClab test to have a better idea.
Good news for AMD, even better when you consider this is without Mantle which will give it another two cores to work with...
Yuriman
Diamond Member
- Jun 25, 2004
- 5,530
- 141
- 106
If a stock 4770K were on that chart I'd expect it to fall just below the 3970X - and then consider you have around 15% overclocking headroom on it. Not to mention the 3970X is probably good for at another 1000mhz+ too.
GameGPU's benches used to interest me, but they only have 3 year old Intel processors now.
GameGPU's benches used to interest me, but they only have 3 year old Intel processors now.
Mantle has nothing to do with the GPU as far as we know. What you see is what you get.
Wish there was a way they could do a lower resolution and include a couple other cards, like the gtx680 and something like a 7870 and a 7750 as well just to see at what resolution does the cpu end up not being a bottleneck and the gpu bottleneck begin.
Using the titan at 1680x1050 seems silly, they should have used a gtx680 or 7970Ghz as I bet the results would be entirely different.
Maybe someone here with a i7 could do some runs at the same 1680x1050 resolution and redo them with ht disabled.:thumbsup:
Using the titan at 1680x1050 seems silly, they should have used a gtx680 or 7970Ghz as I bet the results would be entirely different.
Maybe someone here with a i7 could do some runs at the same 1680x1050 resolution and redo them with ht disabled.:thumbsup:
You mean CPU I guess, but check slide 18 - http://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/battlefield-4-frostbite-3-mantle
This part of it may already have been incorporated into the Frostbite engine however.
Yeah, I meant CPU. Also looks like I was wrong... That sucks. It's just as dumb as PhysX then! :/
Dumb that it lets developers use all 8 CPU cores? The problem is with DirectX, if you check slide 13 you can see that DX and OpenGL are preventing multicore CPU's from working properly (I believe most games are limited at 6 cores). AMD's solution fixes that for people who have more cores, to me that's a good thing.
you might want to actually read what mantle is supposed to do....lower cpu overhead to allow up to 9x the calls;
allow full access to gpu memory and cores.....
so yes; mantle will have an effect on cpu performace...in BF4
It's dumb because, if you look at the benchmarks, BF4 ignores hyperthreading. In other words, it's intentionally crippled on Intel CPUs, similar to how PhysX is crippled on CPUs. Basically, Mantle is worthless if you don't have an FX 8-core. Also, I don't believe that DX is the reason why 8 threads can't be used for one second. That's a bold-faced lie.
In the results at the top of this post, the 2600K improves BF4 performance by 13-17% over the 2500K, despite only having a 3% clockspeed advantage. That's hyperthreading at work.
As for the 8-thread DX thing ... does anyone on this board have the full context of being a graphics engine developer to really appreciate what this statement (9x more draw calls) means? I take it to mean that graphics draw calls have to be serialized in DX, but that this is only a fraction of overall execution time. Obviously, other parts of the engine can be arbitrarily parallelized (physics updates, etc.). You are not going to get 9x higher FPS with Mantle, but you might get 20%. We'll have to see.
MLSCrow
Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 59
- 0
- 61
I know this might be a bit of a dated thread, sorry, but it's the first result of a google search I made, so, anyway, I just wanted to state that the 9590 is not ludicrously stupid...at least not anymore. It was when it was $800+, but it's been at $329 for a while now. The same price as Intel's non-Extreme flagship, the 4770K. At that price, I can definitely see the 9590 being a decent buy (for those not concerned about power consumption) and especially considering how much everything is moving toward multithreading and how Mantle is now pretty much making any AMD CPU compete with anything Intel has to offer as long as it's available to use, which I think it will be, more and more as it gains popularity, which it will, considering that in some instances it can improve performance by upwards of %60.
I personally would still opt for a $169 FX-8350, but for those who want to say they have the BEST AMD chip ever made or that they are at 5GHz stock, well, sure, g'head and spend the extra money, but it won't provide a 25% performance boost over the 8350 in most situations, so it's a bit of a diminishing return on the additional money you are spending.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
Maybe a PR 6000 or 7000 in 4 threads and down
Lets just see a more recent chart btw.
redzo
Senior member
- Nov 21, 2007
- 547
- 5
- 81
It's still stupid once you get into 4770 territory. The 4770k it's not even listed in those charts. Its sin(9XXX) was that it was too stupid to begin with. Now is just plain stupid.
It's basically the same 83XX. All they did(amd) was cherry pick them. For that they asked an insane premium. Instead, they could have just name them 8370 and 8590 and ask for a few extra bucks. They had the chance to consolidate their enthusiast base and maybe even getting more. They screwed things up by ripping the customers off with the deadliest price/performance ratio in their recent years.
You've got to pair it with an expensive mobo for the long run. You will also need more expensive cooling and a lot more cash for the electricity bills.
All of this for what when you could in fact go for the 4770k? The 4770k is still more attractive despite being pricier.
Last edited:
Right now my kill-a-watt shows 107 watts being used. Though I'm also running stock everything (just reset my bios... I keep thinking I'll find some magic setting for 5.1GHz+
). Though when I was really pushing it (5.1GHz-ish) I did get the CPU to pull somewhere in the ~350 watt range when torturing it.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
If you got a 250$ (4 year old platform) board that actually supports it?
$176.30 shipped. And I can attest that even though not officially supported, the $171.49 MSI 990FXA-GD80 will run the FX9xxx CPUs'
I'm not trying to argue that they are cheap or a good buy, but certainly not $250.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter