• 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.

TechspotTom Clancy's The Division CPU Benchmarks

C

csbin

Senior member
http://www.techspot.com/review/1148-tom-clancys-the-division-benchmarks/page5.html



YoPFY.png









Core i7-6700K


Gm4hU.png


FX-9590

ZoKHD.png
 
Last edited:
Scholzpdx said:
This is good information to have.
Click to expand...
Good information and maybe a sign of things to come. Even if GPU bound at 1080p, the mere fact that you can downclock 6700K by 2Ghz and experience only a minor drop in performance is remarkable. DX12 will likely blur that difference even further.
 
FX8 core @ 4Ghz equal to 6700k @ 4Ghz?

Now that is something I have not seen in a long time....or ever. Kek.


That stuff must be hella GPU bound.
 
I can tell you running the game at 1080p medium settings it keeps a GTX960 at a constant 95-100% usage while playing. Same story with my GTX970 at Ultra settings.
 
If a game in 1080p is GPU-bound even with 980TI just like this game then it will make no sense to buy any high end CPU......
BTW in 1080p it does nice min 70FPS avg 90FPS so I see no GPU-bound here......
 
Last edited:
I thought people by now had learned what a prescripted benchmark is and why its useless for CPU compare. But I guess not.
 
Division_proz.jpg


While not the most demanding scene. They abandoned the prescripted benchmark to get results. But they note its a very weak scene to avoid any difference in the runs.

From the look of the bench, I am almost willing to bet a 800Mhz 6700K can push over 60FPS using the ingame benchmark. But the same time I bet you are going to see sub 20FPS in actual gameplay.
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
While not the most demanding scene. They abandoned the prescripted benchmark to get results. But they note its a very weak scene to avoid any difference in the runs.
Click to expand...
They also used a SLI configuration. Doesn't that inherently increase CPU overhead?
 
coercitiv said:
They also used a SLI configuration. Doesn't that inherently increase CPU overhead?
Click to expand...

Yep.

I think benchmarks like this can be useful, in context.

We know that a Skylake i7 is a much faster chip than any FX CPU you can buy. It's important to know this.

We also know that sometimes, perhaps even frequently, FX CPUs are "fast enough", despite being considerably slower. This is also important to know.

Not all buyers have infinitely deep wallets, and when we make purchases, we do so making concessions and sacrifices. Knowing where a CPU stands, both relative to other CPUs, and with respect to applications one will be running on it, is useful in making these decisions.
 
Shintai's link is 1080P with a GTX980TI SLI set up. Who plays like that? To me that seems like trying very hard to find a CPU bottleneck in a configuration very few people would run in real life. That's fine for discussion sake regarding the max theroretical performance of different CPU's, but I doubt is a very common set up. Again, like most of the time, the FX is fast enough for the vast majority of real world uses, where most of us are far more likely to be GPU bound using practical real life settings. In this game if you have less than SLI GTX980 horsepower, then the FX can probably out run your video card in this title.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Shintai's link is 1080P with a GTX980TI SLI set up. Who plays like that? To me that seems like trying very hard to find a CPU bottleneck in a configuration very few people would run in real life. That's fine for discussion sake regarding the max theroretical performance of different CPU's, but I doubt is a very common set up. Again, like most of the time, the FX is fast enough for the vast majority of real world uses, where most of us are far more likely to be GPU bound using practical real life settings. In this game if you have less than SLI GTX980 horsepower, then the FX can probably out run your video card in this title.
Click to expand...

There are cases where both apply, of course. Sometimes and FX CPU will limit you, and often it will not. Just depends on which games you're playing, what your budget is, and what you're willing to deal with.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Shintai's link is 1080P with a GTX980TI SLI set up. Who plays like that? To me that seems like trying very hard to find a CPU bottleneck in a configuration very few people would run in real life. That's fine for discussion sake regarding the max theroretical performance of different CPU's, but I doubt is a very common set up. Again, like most of the time, the FX is fast enough for the vast majority of real world uses, where most of us are far more likely to be GPU bound using practical real life settings. In this game if you have less than SLI GTX980 horsepower, then the FX can probably out run your video card in this title.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice with benchmarks from actual ingame play, instead of a super low CPU demand prescripted benchmark whos sole purpose is to test the GPU when you want to determine CPU influence? 🙂

Do you think its a valid benchmark if my 6700K at 800Mhz will show 60FPS+?
 
Yuriman said:
There are cases where both apply, of course. Sometimes and FX CPU will limit you, and often it will not. Just depends on which games you're playing, what your budget is, and what you're willing to deal with.
Click to expand...


Absolutely, I've seen benches where the FX is the limiting factor. In those handful of games, typically Intel isn't flying either, but the Intel CPU IS better. No denying that. I'm not looking to make this AMD vs. Intel. Just putting a little context around Shintai's post, if you run 1080P 120Hz and have two GTX980Ti's, then Intel is better. For probably just about every single GPU user running 1080P or higher, the FX won't limit you in this title... unless you are worried about epeen benches more than actually playing the game, anyway.
 
Isn't a pre scripted benchmark kind of like watching a movie where the graphics have to be rendered but that's it? I don't pay any attention to pre scripted benchmarks usually, unless it shows my hardware doing well. Then I will acknowledge it. Nice follow up benchmarks Shintai! Look at that Sandy go! Hell yeah! GO SANDY GO!!!! Long live Sandy-E YEAH BABY!!!

ShintaiDK said:
Division_proz.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ShintaiDK said:
Prescripted benchmark on a Haswell i5:
800MHz 74 FPS
4900MHz 104 FPS

Ingame:
800Mhz 22 FPS
4900Mhz 105 FPS
Click to expand...
Did you just try to prove your point by showing that an 800Mhz i5 cannot run another game entirely?!

ShintaiDK said:
Wouldn't it be nice with benchmarks from actual ingame play, instead of a super low CPU demand prescripted benchmark whos sole purpose is to test the GPU when you want to determine CPU influence?
Click to expand...
And did you not show with a GameGPU ingame bench that low tier CPUs can run The Division even in a more strenuous SLI config? I see a SandyBridge i3 being capable of 60FPS minimums.
 
coercitiv said:
Did you just try to prove your point by showing that an 800Mhz i5 cannot run another game entirely?!


And did you not show with a GameGPU ingame bench that low tier CPUs can run The Division even in a more strenuous SLI config? I see a SandyBridge i3 being capable of 60FPS minimums.
Click to expand...

Gamegpu is from an extremely weak scene as they write. Simply because they needed a place with very little variance. They found the in build benchmark to be completely out of reality. Not that they reached anything much better. Remember Fallout 4 benchmarks too, very scene dependent.

Tomb Raider is a nice documented result of prescripted benchmarking on CPU load.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top