gamegpuCall of Duty Black Ops III Beta Benchmark

[TheELF]

PC guys also always love to estimate future performance out of today's games. I don't see why you're getting so fed up about me commenting about i7 being a better purchase than i5 in the long run.

How are you not doing the same thing right now?

Bottom of the line is that even if all games will be optimized in 5 years the difference between the two will still be the same,if someone picks a cpu today and chooses the i5 because he is happy with the performance then he will still be happy in the future.

 

[Spjut]

I don't think you can compare i5 vs i7 in a vacuum. You have the take in the entire system and entire system cost into consideration.

For someone running graphics cards in excess of $1000, spending the extra $100 on an i7 makes sense. If the graphics card budget is more in the $300-400 range, saving $100 on the cpu to increase the gpu budget will probably be a better bet.

It's all about balance. You're always going to have a bottleneck somewhere, and the trick is to maximize your budget so one component doesn't significantly hamper another.

It's certainly a better bet in the short-term.
At the same time though, the graphics cards are improved by each year and they're super easy to upgrade. As long as the CPU isn't an obvious bottleneck, one can buy a mid-range or high-end graphics card three years from now and simply insert it and enjoy better performance.

Once the CPU becomes the limitation though, not much one can do.

 

[Spjut]

How are you not doing the same thing right now?

Bottom of the line is that even if all games will be optimized in 5 years the difference between the two will still be the same,if someone picks a cpu today and chooses the i5 because he is happy with the performance then he will still be happy in the future.

Ye I've been doing it the whole time, thing is he's going crazy about it.

I don't see why this is so different from the usual talk about AMD's better x performance making the cards more future proof and vice versa

 

[SimianR]

I've always felt that in too many cases I see systems where the money spent on an i7 would have been better invested in a better GPU and dropping down to an i5. Obviously not all of them, but seeing for an example an i7 paired with a Geforce 770 or something makes me think dropping down to an i5 and a 780 would have been a better call.

 

[2is]

Ye I've been doing it the whole time, thing is he's going crazy about it.

I don't see why this is so different from the usual talk about AMD's better x performance making the cards more future proof and vice versa

It seems to me that you're the one who's being upset at the reality of the situation, which is, even in this game, the experience between i5 an i7 is unchanged. Difference is in benchmarks which is where the difference usually is.

I'm not sure where this "going crazy" business is coming from, a little projection on your part maybe?

 

[Piroko]

Yeah, and at the same time, folks are prepared to pay the premium just to get the highest-end GPU even if it's only ten extra FPS. And those without qualms even get them running in Crossfire and Sli

That's the point though, a faster GPU will get you those 10 fps in almost every game. A faster CPU will get you 10 fps maybe, in some games, with some settings. And only if your GPU is fast enough to make use of it in the first place.

The reason I upgraded my CPU the last time had as much to do with the CPU as it had to do with a better platform (faster SATA connection, more and faster USB3 ports, more and faster everything), and the latter can't be fixed by an i7.

 

[guskline]

I actually read the article the OP quoted (They have a language drop down so now most of it is in English) and found the info fascinating, especially the history of the game engine.

I will NOT criticize a person with an I5-2500k vs I7-2600K. The I5 2500k was in my mind a truly revolutionary chip all things considered.

Obviously, as seen in my sig below I have top end cpus BUT I agree with the posters who say balance is the most important feature.

Heck I can be criticized for not having multiple gpus in my 5960x rig but I choose to do so.

I think the tenor of the article is that the game engines are finally being tuned for multi-core cpus and all other things being equal (i.e. same gpu, ram, ssd etc) you are likely to see higher fps.

That being said, I agree with the poster who said something along the lines that if you have a I5-2500k and get 110 fps and an I7-2600k gets 130 fps you won't notice the difference as much as you would if it was a jump from 40 fps to 70 fps.

I'm getting older at 64 so I need all the help I can get from better hardware when gaming. However, a good young gamer with an I5 2500k would likely clean my clock not matter what hardware.

Kind of reminds me of the days in the mid 60s when the muscle cars started to evolve. You could have had the biggest engine/HP/ Torque breating monster alive but in the quarter mile end up getting smoked by a smaller engine car with a better driver.

And OH BTW, the banter back and forth in this thread about this subject sounds EXACTLY how I remember it when my older friends would argue about whether a 327 Chevy engine could beat 390 Ford engine ( of course everybody shut up when a guy came around with his dad's 426 Hemi!:thumbsup

 

[RussianSensation]

That's the point though, a faster GPU will get you those 10 fps in almost every game. A faster CPU will get you 10 fps maybe, in some games, with some settings. And only if your GPU is fast enough to make use of it in the first place.

Overall, your point is valid but there are certain games where the difference in CPU performance between an i5 and an i7 or a 6-core i7 is huge. In other words, you'd be losing a lot more than 10 fps in performance with a slower CPU (i.e., your GPU would be underutilized to its full potential).

Eventually any 2015 GPU will become too slow but a 2015 i7-6700K @ 4.8Ghz will still be potent in 4-5 years unless something dramatic happens in the way games are designed on PS5/XB2. Chances are a 2015 CPU will survive 1-3 GPU upgrades. After having an i5-2500K, my next CPU will either be a 4C+HT or 6-8 Core. There is no way I am going to bet that over the next 5 years there will be 0 next gen games that take advantage of the extra threads. We'll have to see what happens with DX12 though as it could reduce CPU demands by allowing the API to take full advantage of the 4 cores in the i5 thus utilizing it much more. I am not sure if DX12 will help the i5 or the i7 more to be honest.

I've always felt that in too many cases I see systems where the money spent on an i7 would have been better invested in a better GPU and dropping down to an i5. Obviously not all of them, but seeing for an example an i7 paired with a Geforce 770 or something makes me think dropping down to an i5 and a 780 would have been a better call.

It depends on the games you play and your resolution. In some cases the i5 6600K is barely hanging in there with a stock i7 2600K.

That's a pretty pathetic showing for the i5, considering i7-2600K is a January 2011 CPU and i5-6600K is an August 2015 CPU. People who buy an i5-6600K and then spend $70-100 on an after-market CPU cooler make me facepalm.

In some games, like Crysis 3, even a max overclocked i5 cannot match a stock i7.

The point is next time you go to upgrade your GTX770 GPU, as long as you have a solid i7 like 2600K/3770K overclocked to 4.5-4.8Ghz, you an keep using that CPU for another 2-3 years. i7 6700K OC isn't much faster in games.

i5-2500K? Not aging as well at all in games that benefit from 4C+HT.

Of course it all depends on what that extra $100 buys in terms of GPU performance. If we are talking i7+R9 290 vs. i5+GTX970, I would pick the i7 system all day. If we are talking i7 + Fury vs. i5+GTX980Ti, I would pick the GTX980Ti system. But long term, I would spend $100 on an i7 now because I am more confident that modern Skylake i7 or 5820K or similar will last 4-5 years which means $100 extra is really just $20-25 per year extra.

=====================

Anyway, not sure why this GPU discussion on Black Ops turned into a CPU discussion considering we have Black Ops 3 CPU performance being discussed in that section of the forum. I think CPU related discussion should take place there since there is already a separate thread for it.

 

[SimianR]

Overall, your point is valid but there are certain games where the difference in CPU performance between an i5 and an i7 or a 6-core i7 is huge. In other words, you'd be losing a lot more than 10 fps in performance with a slower CPU (i.e., your GPU would be underutilized to its full potential).


That's a pretty pathetic showing for the i5, considering i7-2600K is a January 2011 CPU and i5-6600K is an August 2015 CPU. People who buy an i5-6600K and then spend $70-100 on an after-market CPU cooler make me facepalm.

In some games, like Crysis 3, even a max overclocked i5 cannot match a stock i7.

The point is next time you go to upgrade your GTX770 GPU, as long as you have a solid i7 like 2600K/3770K overclocked to 4.5-4.8Ghz, you an keep using that CPU for another 2-3 years. i7 6700K OC isn't much faster in games.

i5-2500K? Not aging as well at all in games that benefit from 4C+HT.

Of course it all depends on what that extra $100 buys in terms of GPU performance. If we are talking i7+R9 290 vs. i5+GTX970, I would pick the i7 system all day. If we are talking i7 + Fury vs. i5+GTX980Ti, I would pick the GTX980Ti system. But long term, I would spend $100 on an i7 now because I am more confident that modern Skylake i7 or 5820K or similar will last 4-5 years which means $100 extra is really just $20-25 per year extra.

=====================

Anyway, not sure why this GPU discussion on Black Ops turned into a CPU discussion considering we have Black Ops 3 CPU performance being discussed in that section of the forum. I think CPU related discussion should take place there since there is already a separate thread for it.

I see what your saying - but in all of those situations we're still seeing way more than playable framerates in the i5 systems. Arguing 130 fps on the i5 and 140 fps on the i7 isn't a super strong way to prove your point

also your other examples aren't really the best.

Of course it all depends on what that extra $100 buys in terms of GPU performance. If we are talking i7+R9 290 vs. i5+GTX970, I would pick the i7 system all day. If we are talking i7 + Fury vs. i5+GTX980Ti, I would pick the GTX980Ti system. But long term, I would spend $100 on an i7 now because I am more confident that modern Skylake i7 or 5820K or similar will last 4-5 years which means $100 extra is really just $20-25 per year extra.

The price difference between the 290/970 wouldn't be enough to upgrade you to an i7, in most cases. The Fury/980 Ti are also the same price so again, you couldn't put more funds into a CPU in either case as you wouldn't saving more in either situation. There is a case to be made for investing more in an i7, I get that, but I think everyone has some sort of target budget in mind when building a system, whether its $1000, 1500, 2000, etc - there's always somewhat of a limit for most people and I find in most cases if you're taking cash out of your GPU budget to upgrade to that i7 you're probably going to a hit a GPU wall before your CPU limited.

 

[imaheadcase]

Not sure why people are even considering this as a benchmark.. its literally the same engine every CoD that comes out.

 

[2is]

Not sure why people are even considering this as a benchmark.. its literally the same engine every CoD that comes out.

I assure you BO3 is more demanding that COD1 or even the widely respected, COD4... I'm not saying it's a better game, but it is more demanding. It's "based" of the same engine, doesn't make it identical.

 

[RussianSensation]

Not sure why people are even considering this as a benchmark.. its literally the same engine every CoD that comes out.

The engine has been heavily changed over the years. It's not the same engine that was used in Modern Warfare 1/2/3 or Black Ops 1. That's like saying Crysis 1 and Crysis 3/Ryse Son of Rome run on the same engine. The write-up provided by GameGPU actually describes how the engine has evolved over time.

Also, PCGamesHardware has its own write-up:

'So is Black Ops 3 now, for example on Physically Based Rendering, also has a global as well as volumetric lighting, a fairly fine ambient occlusion, soft, contact-hardening shadows, etc."

There is no doubt that NV will improve the performance of its cards but this is yet another game that looks like it basically nails the coffin for 2GB GPUs.

Wolfenstein NWO, Dead Rising 3, AC Unity, Shadow of Mordor, Titanfall, Black Ops 3 Beta, Mortal Kombat X, Watch Dogs, etc. all these games run very poorly on 2GB cards without reducing settings.

 

[TheELF]

Gtx690 2gb = 76FPS minimum@1080 ,how is that a nail in the coffin by any stretch of the meaning?

 

[RaulF]

Gtx690 2gb = 76FPS minimum@1080 ,how is that a nail in the coffin by any stretch of the meaning?

That's just a number. The fps.


But how does it play!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Overall, your point is valid but there are certain games where the difference in CPU performance between an i5 and an i7 or a 6-core i7 is huge. In other words, you'd be losing a lot more than 10 fps in performance with a slower CPU (i.e., your GPU would be underutilized to its full potential).

Eventually any 2015 GPU will become too slow but a 2015 i7-6700K @ 4.8Ghz will still be potent in 4-5 years unless something dramatic happens in the way games are designed on PS5/XB2. Chances are a 2015 CPU will survive 1-3 GPU upgrades. After having an i5-2500K, my next CPU will either be a 4C+HT or 6-8 Core. There is no way I am going to bet that over the next 5 years there will be 0 next gen games that take advantage of the extra threads. We'll have to see what happens with DX12 though as it could reduce CPU demands by allowing the API to take full advantage of the 4 cores in the i5 thus utilizing it much more. I am not sure if DX12 will help the i5 or the i7 more to be honest.



It depends on the games you play and your resolution. In some cases the i5 6600K is barely hanging in there with a stock i7 2600K.

That's a pretty pathetic showing for the i5, considering i7-2600K is a January 2011 CPU and i5-6600K is an August 2015 CPU. People who buy an i5-6600K and then spend $70-100 on an after-market CPU cooler make me facepalm.

In some games, like Crysis 3, even a max overclocked i5 cannot match a stock i7.

The point is next time you go to upgrade your GTX770 GPU, as long as you have a solid i7 like 2600K/3770K overclocked to 4.5-4.8Ghz, you an keep using that CPU for another 2-3 years. i7 6700K OC isn't much faster in games.

i5-2500K? Not aging as well at all in games that benefit from 4C+HT.

Of course it all depends on what that extra $100 buys in terms of GPU performance. If we are talking i7+R9 290 vs. i5+GTX970, I would pick the i7 system all day. If we are talking i7 + Fury vs. i5+GTX980Ti, I would pick the GTX980Ti system. But long term, I would spend $100 on an i7 now because I am more confident that modern Skylake i7 or 5820K or similar will last 4-5 years which means $100 extra is really just $20-25 per year extra.

=====================

Anyway, not sure why this GPU discussion on Black Ops turned into a CPU discussion considering we have Black Ops 3 CPU performance being discussed in that section of the forum. I think CPU related discussion should take place there since there is already a separate thread for it.

Actually, those games you picked here make a pretty strong argument *against* hyperthreading showing a significant benefit. The average difference between the 6600k and 6700k (or 4690k vs 4670k) is only 12 percent, and depending on how turbo performs, the i7 also has about 5 to 10% higher clockspeed. So basically no gain from hyperthreading.

 

[TheELF]

That's just a number. The fps.


But how does it play!

He didn't tell us anything else why 2gb is not enough, only the benchmarks of this op,do you have any benchmark that shows frametime and shows that 2gb is not enough for 1080 anymore?