[Gamegpu] BF4 China Rising CPU scaling

[BallaTheFeared]

Yeah that's great except the only reason we're talking right now is because it's BF4.

N4S used the frostbite engine it was capped at 30 fps, so let's not play make-believe that this is anything more than what it is. A single popular PC title, the rest on your list don't carry the same weight.

Do the CryEngine games use the Gaming Evolved CPU performance crippling rope physics which brought the i5 down to 8350 levels whereas without it it was noticeably faster?

 

[ChronoReverse]

I am aware that 4670K can be overclocked but FX6300 cost half the money. And both of them will get you 60fps constantly. I was merely pointing out that AMD FX series has superior performance per price for that game.

Definitely. It's certainly nice that AMD can compete in this area.

 

[hawtdawg]

The benchmarks from these guys were completely wrong the last time around, don't know why I'd believe them this time.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Which benches, hawtdawg?

 

[hawtdawg]

Which benches, hawtdawg?

The GPU benchmarks they released at the end of October were incredibly inaccurate.

Take the one below for example; anyone with a 780 can tell you that this is absolutely laughable. These 780 SLI results are what I get with like 160% resolution scaling or a single card.

 

[ChronoReverse]

The scores are a bit low but don't look that far off depending on the map they're on.

2560x1600 @ max settings and 4xMSAA really kills the framerate.


http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page4.html

Techspot gets even lower framerates in their bench because they chose a particularly difficult segment. Pushing a Titan down to 32FPS, wow.

http://hardocp.com/article/2013/11/17/battlefield_4_video_card_performance_iq_review/5

HardOCP has an easier segment so 53FPS for the Titan there.


I don't see where Gamegpu is particularly off.

 

[Termie]

I continue to be amazed at GameGPU's benchmarks showing huge advantages for HT and AMD's chips.

The benchmarks I put out on The Tech Buyer's Guru were conducted on a 3770K/Win7 machine and a 4770K/Win8 machine, both using a GTX780. Every time, whether it was in single-player or 64-man multi-player, the machines were slower with HT turned on.

Anyone else care to give this a try? Anecdotal evidence from some forum users suggests that HT was definitely causing some stuttering.

 

[Headfoot]

The FX8350 is doing fine indeed(in multithreaded games). The differences with the 4770K are neglectable. The games I played showed no differences between my 3770K and the 8350. Its all a bit academic/number crazyness.

Last I checked 20 fps with the same graphics card at 1080 isn't negligble whatsoever. That's not even comparing max oc v. max oc. That's enough headroom to bump it up to 2560x1600

 

[ChronoReverse]

Anyone else care to give this a try? Anecdotal evidence from some forum users suggests that HT was definitely causing some stuttering.

I'll run some tests if I have some time tonight. Personally, I haven't gotten any stutters on my 4770k with HT (on 8.1) but it's running at 4.3GHz so it may simply be running fast enough that it's above the threshold for HT-induced stutters?

I'll flip it back to stock and see what happens on low graphics 64 multiplayer.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let me help you a little then,

FX6300 at 4GHz with a cost of only $109,99 will be as fast as Core i5 4670K that costs $224,99. There is no Intel CPU to have that performance at that price point.

In the old overclocking days, if you had a CPU that could have the same performance when OCed at half the price, everyone would jump like crazy.

L5639, but I know that's cheating. ;-)

 

[lehtv]

FX6300 at 4GHz with a cost of only $109,99 will be as fast as Core i5 4670K that costs $224,99. There is no Intel CPU to have that performance at that price point.

Erm, what? The 4670K is getting 10 fps or 19% better minimums and 15 fps or 20% better averages. That doesn't make the FX-6300 "as fast".

The FX-6300 is nearly as fast as the 3.3GHz i5-2500K which roughly equals a 3GHz Haswell i5-4430. That costs $190. Before you say it, yes, the FX-6300 is still quite a bit better value according to the bench, I just wanted to clear up the exaggeration in the advantage to AMD.

What the graph does show though is that the FX-8350 equals i5-4670K, and that's comparing $200 to $225 minus savings from much lower power consumption on Intel's side.

 

[ChronoReverse]

He's talking about an FX-6300 overlcocked to 4GHz. In which case it would be close.

I already brought up that it's OC vs stock but it's still good value, which was what he's trying to point out.

 

[lehtv]

Ah... weird comparing OC vs stock. To OC to 4GHz you need a cooler for the FX-6300 which costs at least $30 ish, which puts the cost to $140, not $110. And you also have to pay for a motherboard that can actually overclock. And then you have to take into account the rather significant long term savings in electricity when using the 4670K instead of an overclocked FX-6300.

Also, if an OC to 4GHz would bridge the gap to 4670K, then it would also equal the FX-8350. Does BF4 not take advantage of more than 6 cores then, or does it mean the FX-6300 would need to be overclocked to 4.2GHz, or perhaps even more?

 

[AtenRa]

Ah... weird comparing OC vs stock. To OC to 4GHz you need a cooler for the FX-6300 which costs at least $30 ish, which puts the cost to $140, not $110. And you also have to pay for a motherboard that can actually overclock.

No, you dont need a cooler to OC to 4GHz and no you can OC the FX6300 to 4GHz with a low budget motherboard. Most FX6300 will OC to 4GHz without even raising the Vcore.

Also, if an OC to 4GHz would bridge the gap to 4670K, then it would also equal the FX-8350. Does BF4 not take advantage of more than 6 cores then, or does it mean the FX-6300 would need to be overclocked to 4.2GHz, or perhaps even more?

I said an FX6300 at 4GHz will be close to Core i5 4670K not FX8350. BF4 scales up to 8 threads so an FX6300 at 4GHz will not equal the FX8350.

 

[lehtv]

No, you dont need a cooler to OC to 4GHz and no you can OC the FX6300 to 4GHz with a low budget motherboard. Most FX6300 will OC to 4GHz without even raising the Vcore.

Hm perhaps you're right about that.

 

[Pijoto]

EA are putting a lot of their new games onto Frostbite 3. The new Star Wars Battlefront game, the new Mirrors Edge, the new Dragon Age, the new Mass Effect, the new Need for Speed... if Battlefield 4 scales well with multicore, then all of these games will do too. And CryEngine 3 is used in plenty of other games, too.

This is the reason why I'm looking into finally getting a Phenom II X4 or X6, and probably a whole lot of other people are doing the same, because even used chips are selling for as much as if they were new D: Still cheaper than getting a new MoBo and Windows copy though if I wanted to get an FX chip instead.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I said an FX6300 at 4GHz will be close to Core i5 4670K not FX8350. BF4 scales up to 8 threads so an FX6300 at 4GHz will not equal the FX8350.

How does that make sense to you when the i5 is pretty much as good as the 8350 now?

Let me help you out, it doesn't.


Please stop cherry picking one dysfunctional broken game with more bugs than a homeless shelter sleeping mat.

 

[24601]

If you guys actually read the gamegpu site you would know exactly what test they used to determine everything and the exact settings they used.

Something almost no other site does.

On that note, they literally never have any action in the user viewport, so this might as well be a single player test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQG7yxYl40

Protip, Google Translate works very well on Russian.

 

[frozentundra123456]

No, you dont need a cooler to OC to 4GHz and no you can OC the FX6300 to 4GHz with a low budget motherboard. Most FX6300 will OC to 4GHz without even raising the Vcore.



I said an FX6300 at 4GHz will be close to Core i5 4670K not FX8350. BF4 scales up to 8 threads so an FX6300 at 4GHz will not equal the FX8350.

Your logic is flawed. FX8350 is slower than 4670k in ave fps and faster in min fps, but both measurements are probably within the margin of error. So for all intents and purposes in this benchmark they are equal. So if the overclocked 6300 is equal to a 4670k, it also has to be equal to the 8350.

 

[AtenRa]

How does that make sense to you when the i5 is pretty much as good as the 8350 now?

Let me help you out, it doesn't.


Please stop cherry picking one dysfunctional broken game with more bugs than a homeless shelter sleeping mat.

Being close to 4670K is not the same as being equal. Oh and this thread is about the BF4 China Rising and CPU Scaling. If you dont like the game you can go and talk to another thread

Your logic is flawed. FX8350 is slower than 4670k in ave fps and faster in min fps, but both measurements are probably within the margin of error. So for all intents and purposes in this benchmark they are equal. So if the overclocked 6300 is equal to a 4670k, it also has to be equal to the 8350.

As I've said to Balla, being close is not the same as being equal. FX6300 at 4GHz will be close to 4670K and FX8350. It will not have exactly the same performance but it will be close to 95-98% with half the price.

Even if 4670K was faster than the FX8350, having 95-98% the performance at half the price is remarkable.

 

[AtenRa]

If you guys actually read the gamegpu site you would know exactly what test they used to determine everything and the exact settings they used.

Something almost no other site does.

On that note, they literally never have any action in the user viewport, so this might as well be a single player test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQG7yxYl40

Protip, Google Translate works very well on Russian.

Even if you not inside the action, there is a performance hit when you have players in the server.

Empty server

64-player server

 

[lehtv]

I said an FX6300 at 4GHz will be close to Core i5 4670K not FX8350.

No that is not what you said:

FX6300 at 4GHz with a cost of only $109,99 will be as fast as Core i5 4670K that costs $224,99.

"as fast as" != "close to"

BF4 scales up to 8 threads so an FX6300 at 4GHz will not equal the FX8350.

Even if 4670K was faster than the FX8350, having 95-98% the performance at half the price is remarkable.

So the 33% extra threads (8 vs 6) result in 2-5% more performance? Some scaling that is.

 

[AtenRa]

No that is not what you said:



"as fast as" != "close to"

Fine, it will not be as fast as 4670k and FX8350 but it will be close. are we happy now ??? that doesnt change that it will have almost the same performance at half the price.

So the 33% extra threads (8 vs 6) result in 2-5% more performance? Some scaling that is.

33% more threads help in gameplay mostly, not performance. It is more smooth with 8 threads at the same fps than 6 or 4. You have to play the game to really understand the difference.

 

[ShintaiDK]

With the prices and huge performance delta. You need to be a fanboy to buy AMD as a new setup. Only the upgrade path with existing motherboard is even viable. While some will cherry pick the heavily AMD sponsored BF4. Its just not how the regular realworld gaming looks like.

Not to mention the FX line is dead. Because its anything than a success.

 

[Skurge]

Fine, it will not be as fast as 4670k and FX8350 but it will be close. are we happy now ??? that doesnt change that it will have almost the same performance at half the price.





33% more threads help in gameplay mostly, not performance. It is more smooth with 8 threads at the same fps than 6 or 4. You have to play the game to really understand the difference.

I have to say my 4770K does feel smoother in this game than my old 3570K.