Not correct. This guy is trying to sell Intel CPU's.
There is no CAP that suddenly stops and deserves a bottleneck stamp. Find me one and I will give you my chickens
I can tell you do not game much, or if you do, you do not play CPU intensive games, or just don't care. AMD has not competed with Intel in 5 years.... The only viable upgrade is Intel until Zen is released.
Keep in mind that while AMD has been suffering from FX, Intel has moved on to support 4 GHz+ DDR4 which has solid performance gains in CPU limited titles.
You just listed all the games I can get 60fps @ 1080 on with an fx4350 & 7970.
Arma 3 specifically can now be run at 5760/1080 @ Very high w/ 6k view 6k object & 4x FXAA on an 1100T and still maintain over 30 with 50 ai fighting in view.
I dont disagree that cpu bottlenecks exist, but when people who dont know how to configure games assume the benchmark is the best you can get, they tend to give shit advice.
I agree that most canned benchmarks are useless. Most of them do not put a realistic load on the CPU, making a weak CPU look viable! Keep in mind that some of the games I listed cannot achieve 60 fps when CPU limited. A lot of older and newer titles can only load physics and AI on one core.
ARMA does at least include a real benchmark which put immense load on the CPU. The ARMA 2 benchmarks cannot maintain 60fps on any system to date. That doesn't mean an FX system will be the same as the Intel system.... All it does is show how anemic the FX (and old Intel systems) are at CPU limited games. When FPS nearly doubles going from FX -> Haswell+ it is time to wake up and smell the coffee.
You are right. I will admit it can drop to 45 fps, but without a frame counter I dont know a person who can catch that drop, And I have tested.
Some games drop no matter the cpu.Arma 3 easily drops to <20fps at times even well configured on a 6700k (ai).
So you claim you are hitting more than 30fps with just 50 AI in ARMA 3. That is awful. I could easily get the same framerate with well over 2x the units on a modern Intel system! Imagine how much that CPU is holding back your GPU when "**** hits the fan" or so to speak.
Being CPU bottlenecked in these scenarios means that no matter how low you change these settings, your FPS will not change. I could add ~ 100 AI per team (BLUFOR v OPFOR) on ARMA, and I would be hitting a pretty low FPS on average on a modern Intel system. Even lowering the draw distance and putting every setting on the minimum would not change my FPS. The same scenario on FX would be unplayable. I even made a "Battle of the Bulge" CPU benchmark for Invasion 1944. It has nearly 400 enemy troops attacking a broken down convoy of ~50 troops! My FPS ranges from 7-18 fps. I would love to see what happens on an FX... :twisted:
As someone who has a hobby in supporting and making mods in games like ARMA 2 and 3, Sins of a Solar Empire, and Supreme Commander, Kerbal Space Program, and Total War games; I have to push these games to the limit to test them properly. These games' performance scale linearly with clockspeed. A modern Intel system runs circles around any CPU from ~2011 or older.
If I halve my frequency, I get half the FPS. AMD has a HUGE deficit in single threaded performance even back when FX debuted... The difference in 2016 is something no self respecting gamer should miss.
Please remember that no self respecting pc gamer plays a game without tweaking it for his/her setup. I've havent played the game yet, but give me 5 minutes with the .cfg and I'll beat those numbers by 50%.
While that might not make the amd better than the intel, it surely makes it good enough in the eyes of more gamers.
Remember, most games have nothing to change when you are CPU limited by the AI. Not one setting. All that can be done is increasing all the IQ to try to mask being bottlenecked by the CPU.
"Good enough" is quite vague. I need the fastest single threaded performance to even come close to "good enough" and that isn't cutting it at times. If you are fine with holding back your GPU in every title that isn't well threaded, then FX is good enough.
On the other hand, we do have games out now that are well threaded. I can happily recommend an FX 8XXX for someone who only will play Frostbite powered games (or other titles which balance the CPU load perfectly). Unfortunately, not many titles are like this. It is like recommending CFX/SLI because it works in this series of games, even if you may not be playing them that much. Take Kerbal Space Program. It works great on virtually every type of hardware -- Until you start building complex space craft. Only an Intel system has the single threaded performance to push games into this decade; and its barely cutting it.
I find it incredibly hard to recommend a platform that works some of the time. I want my computer to work well with everything. I don't want to make serious compromises, such as having to cap AI to 50 to maintain ~30 fps. If I am getting below 60 fps, I will damn sure be loading a 1:1 scale skirmish or something far more epic.
I can't believe that an enthusiast forum like this has users who believe their 4-6 year old CPU is not holding them back. CPU's can never be fast enough, especially for the likes of the GTX 1080 (Which isn't that fast in the grand scheme of things).
Facebook
Twitter