• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

gamegpu2016 New Game CPU Benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
LOL maybe that game doesn't suck haha. We all assumed it was some no name loser game, but its actually a legit game. Egg on this face right here. Its right here.
 
ShintaiDK said:
It cant be that inferior.

And the 6100 and 6300 shows no improvement over 4100 and 4300.

Its more a mix of cache speed, cache size and simple frequency that its actual core performance.
Click to expand...

In addition, the 8350 has almost 15% base clock advantage over the 6300. Not sure what each one turbos at under load, but sheer clockspeed undoubtedly plays a part.

I do take game.gpu results with more skepticism than I used to, but in some games, FX is undoubtedly more competitive than it used to be. Unfortunately, it still uses more power and will drop off in games that demand fast single thread performance, so intel remains a more efficient and well rounded cpu.
 
Arachnotronic said:
Cool story, bro. When a friend comes to me and asks me for a recommendation for the best CPU for her/his money, I will ask them if they the MEGA POPULAR game Deserts of Kharak. If they tell me this is their most favorite game of ever, I will be sure to help them put together a sweet Core i7 4790K build (since the FX 9590 is likely to be slower based on these benchmarks and about the same price).

Thank you for yet another valuable contribution to these boards, csbin. Without these "drive-by" posts I don't know how I would make hardware purchasing decisions! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Shameful post. OP posted 3 graphs without a single comment, where did all this come from?
 
Arachnotronic said:
Thank you for yet another valuable contribution to these boards, csbin. Without these "drive-by" posts I don't know how I would make hardware purchasing decisions!
Click to expand...

At least he posted some info about this new game. This is your contribution?

Back on topic

Seems to be an interesting game, i like RTS type of games so i might give it a try. FX lineup looks decent here but maybe a bit too late.
 
Burpo said:
" Deserts of Kharak represents no great strides for RTS games, offers no big ideas, nor presents any real surprises for the genre. Nevertheless, it still remains, by and large, a confident and capable game. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-01-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review
Click to expand...

Yet it's ranked higher than Rainbow Six Siege, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Just Cause 3, Star Wars Battlefront

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak

I'm looking forward to try it.
 
Last edited:
ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
 
showb1z said:
ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Click to expand...

You got it, it's all because the FX beat Intel line up in this title. So predictable :whiste:
 
TheELF said:
Not really, 4.7 is the max the FX can go in a sane way vs 3.5 Ghz which is the stock speed of intel.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree, that wasn't my point thou, it's just the charts showing a certain FX on the lead that do not please a few here
 
showb1z said:
ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, pretty funny actually.

This just shows me that a budget build with an OC'd 8320E is still a worthwhile option, contrary to the reactions of people who care way more about this then any normal enthusiast should.
 
Burpo said:
" Deserts of Kharak represents no great strides for RTS games, offers no big ideas, nor presents any real surprises for the genre. Nevertheless, it still remains, by and large, a confident and capable game. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-01-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review
Click to expand...
Being able to leverage so many cores seems to be quite a stride for the RTS genre which is, from what I've seen, known for having poor multithreading.

Even the DX12 Ashes does better on an i3 than on an 8 core FX.
 
Granted, the game.gpu utilization charts look that way, but otoh, a dual core i3 is very close to 8 core FX, and the 8350 is only 20% faster than 6300, most of which can be explained by the faster clocks.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Even in DOK, the 8350 is tied with an i3-4330, so it doesn't look that good.
Click to expand...


But what is significantly faster than an i3 4330 in that game in those charts? Anything? The i7 5960X is barely faster than the i3 4330 or FX8350, too.
 
Last edited:
SlowSpyder said:
But what is significantly faster than an i3 4330 in that game in those charts? Anything? The i7 5960X is barely faster than the i3 4330 or FX8350, too.
Click to expand...
They would have to find a section of gameplay where there are a lot of enemies and stuff going on to do a real CPU test otherwise they are just measuring the graphics so it's only logical for every CPU (over a certain compute power) to have similar FPSs.
 
What happened to this forums . SMH

Now back on Topic I play the game and love it.

The thing is Deserts of Kharak uses the Unity engine which doesn't thread for crap. So I think it shows according the benchmarks the game really prefers clock speed since it does most of the cpu intensive workload in a single thread.

Any overclocked Intel's would take back over the lead if that benchmark was ran on overclocked Intel cpu's.

Game also seems to need a driver update from Nvidia for 900 series cards because performance is lacking currently. Unity also doesn't support SLI so that was a waste to benchmark it with SLI.
 
Last edited:
http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-strategy-XCOM_2-test-XCom2_proz.jpg
 
Erenhardt said:
It shows how poorly coded xcom 2 is.


can't even leverage 4 threads properly. Looks like 2016 is 2006 again.
Click to expand...

Xcom2 uses the Unreal Engine 3, so no wonder why it needs single thread/Core performance.
But again this is a turned based game, anything above 30fps is more than fine.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Well, "it is what it is", and will quite likely be a very popular game. Complaining about the coding does not change the results.
Click to expand...

Will you see a difference from 70 fps to 100 fps? It's playable and the experience will be similar. Why cheer for what is in reality an insignificant difference?

Intel slaughters AMD in poor threaded stuff 😱
big news, everybody knows that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top