• 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.

Intriguing Saint's Row 4 CPU benchmarks

Are you benchmarking the same sequence that gamegpu.ru does? If not then it may be that they're just benching a more CPU intensive part of the game than you are.

Anyways, another case of poor multithreading. Hopefully the 8 core processors in next gen consoles will lead to better threading.
 
Red Hawk said:
Are you benchmarking the same sequence that gamegpu.ru does? If not then it may be that they're just benching a more CPU intensive part of the game than you are.

Anyways, another case of poor multithreading. Hopefully the 8 core processors in next gen consoles will lead to better threading.
Click to expand...

Not sure if there is a sequence, its an open world city. You may have a point though. Still, it is a rather large discrepancy.
 
Saints Row IV is highly single-threaded dependent; which is unfortunate. Games with much higher fidelity and complexity run better than this console port.
 
ZGR said:
Saints Row IV is highly single-threaded dependent; which is unfortunate. Games with much higher fidelity and complexity run better than this console port.
Click to expand...

if you exclude AMD,

sr4%20proz.jpg


$120 CPU from 2011 get's 70 AVG, 50 min

it doesn't run badly
it's a sub 30FPS game on the consoles...

so even the FX 4100 is a improvement over the consoles.

this is interesting:


sr4%20intel.jpg


0% HT usage on the dual core, but some HT usage on the hexa core?

anyway, it looks like most games... it benefits from more than 2 cores, but no more than 4 really...
 
So I won't be playing SR4 I guess. Oh well, never really liked that pos game anyway 🙂.
 
mikk said:
The odd thing is that there is no IVB and no Haswell.
Click to expand...

Yea, I love that they test so many games, but with all the cpus and gpus they test, looks like they could at least get a 4670k. Being one generation behind was not too bad, since there was minimal improvement, but being behind 2 generations is a bit much.

Interesting if you look at the core usage, the 8350 does use 8 cores, just low utilization of each. Amd fans can complain about poor coding all they want, but some games just need fast single core performance.
 
I don't see what's intriguing about these results. It's just another example of how poor AMD's IPC is and how that translates into significantly less frames when the game doesn't take advantage of enough cores. Many other games perform like this and it's a well known flaw to gaming with an AMD cpu. Well known to those who don't have their head in the sand at least. Haswell would look even better here if the reviewer would just buy one.
 
yeah but is is also there job to provide a modern game engine so it can run on their customers hardware, it is like only building a 32bit game when you need more tha 4gbs of memory for game assets...[my go at an anology] it is probably faster for n people to handwash laundry that use the dryer.

Durp said:
I don't see what's intriguing about these results. It's just another example of how poor AMD's IPC is and how that translates into significantly less frames when the game doesn't take advantage of enough cores. Many other games perform like this and it's a well known flaw to gaming with an AMD cpu. Well known to those who don't have their head in the sand at least. Haswell would look even better here if the reviewer would just buy one.
Click to expand...

I dont see how a third party piece of software underperforming with amd cpus makes the cpus themselves flawed. If the s/w were optimized and we see still this sizable gap then thing may be different
 
Last edited:
frozentundra123456 said:
Interesting if you look at the core usage, the 8350 does use 8 cores, just low utilization of each.
Click to expand...
System tasks, fraps etc...

frozentundra123456 said:
Amd fans can complain about poor coding all they want, but some games just need fast single core performance.
Click to expand...
says the guy playing SR4 with half of his i5 (or 3/4 of i7) is idling, yet he struggles with low min frame rate in multiplayer game with lots of users.
Yet another game that uses 2 cores. The only benefit of having more than that is to offload background tasks.
 
JimmiG said:
AMD is improving though.
38 FPS with Phenom II
45 FPS with Bulldozer
58 FPS with Vishera

Another such improvement and they will be close to the 2500K.
Click to expand...

yeah, over 2.5 years after the 2500K's debut, yay!

games need better multithread/core support and they need it yesterday
 
monstercameron said:
yeah but is is also there job to provide a modern game engine so it can run on their customers hardware, it is like only building a 32bit game when you need more tha 4gbs of memory for game assets...[my go at an anology] it is probably faster for n people to handwash laundry that use the dryer.



I dont see how a third party piece of software underperforming with amd cpus makes the cpus themselves flawed. If the s/w were optimized and we see still this sizable gap then thing may be different
Click to expand...

Well, as the saying goes, "it is what it is." One can blame the programmers for poor coding, but they could just as easily blame amd for designing processors with low ipc. It doesn't really matter, blaming either or both doesn't change the results.
 
monstercameron said:
I dont see how a third party piece of software underperforming with amd cpus makes the cpus themselves flawed. If the s/w were optimized and we see still this sizable gap then thing may be different
Click to expand...

Flawed? Not necessarily. But do they have an achilles heel? Yes, and this game exploits that rather convincingly. This is also why I would never build or recommend an AMD gaming machine. You can blame poor code, but it doesn't really matter. The code is what it is and if you want to play the game, you have to play it with the bad code and the hardware you've brung.
 
bunnyfubbles said:
yeah, over 2.5 years after the 2500K's debut, yay!

games need better multithread/core support and they need it yesterday
Click to expand...

Well, their progress is still more impressive than Intel's "two steps forward and one step back" with IB and Haswell. Intel is a stationary target at this stage and AMD is getting closer with each iteration. I just hope they keep trying.
 
2is said:
Flawed? Not necessarily. But do they have an achilles heel? Yes, and this game exploits that rather convincingly. This is also why I would never build or recommend an AMD gaming machine. You can blame poor code, but it doesn't really matter. The code is what it is and if you want to play the game, you have to play it with the bad code and the hardware you've brung.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Or you could just be like the guy below and not play video games.


inf64 said:
So I won't be playing SR4 I guess. Oh well, never really liked that pos game anyway 🙂.
Click to expand...

You must miss out on so many games with that attitude.
 
Nope. My system runs games of my interest flawlessly. It's perfect and it was dirt cheap. Best buy I have ever done (cpu+mobo+memory).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top