Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

AMD vs Intel: MDD1963 vs Drillingmachine


  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#1 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine

  • Members
  • 2,093 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:55 AM

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/652649/questions-before-buying-new-cpu/?p=4322812


We learned so much that I am anticipating our two antagonists actually beginning a topic of their own (doesn't matter which initiates it) where this sort of thing can go on until all of us have long ceased to be members here at BC. In fact...I leave that invitation open as a challenge to each of them...a public debate/history/whatever...that is a valid topic with one of their names on it as OP. The membership eagerly awaits this, IMO.


Here it is. It seems I cannot make two separate posts, sad.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/655654/best-gaming-pc/?p=4322795
 

Best for games? Games only? No streaming?

Desire/need the highest average framerates, highest 1% lows, highest .1% lows in pretty much all games?

If ever there was a screaming case for the 7700K, I've not heard of it. Although some will simply never give it the nod it is due in any scenario. For some, your only choice is which Ryzen, and, no 57% frame rate deficit in DOTA2 or 20% deficit in BF1 (1080P)will convince them you will ever need those frames.


DOTA 2 was updated like 6 months ago. Also future games will likely want more cores. Those who disagree, may wonder why Intel is releasing six core part for gaming.
 

Food for thought: the 8700K is coming within a month or two, and folks are understandably curious is to how it might perform, game-wise...


It's slightly better because it has slightly better boost clocks, nothing else. Other than that, it's simply crap for gaming as using your logic, 4 cores is enough so adding two more cores would not help at all and still it will drive price higher.

Edited by Drillingmachine, 30 August 2017 - 07:56 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 54,298 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:05:14 AM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 08:53 AM

Excellent!

 

Each of you are intelligent...I expect all exchanges in this topic to be pertinent and simple enough to be of some value to all who may read the contents.

 

Of course...other members may wish to add their comments, but the primary thrust of this topic is to allow a meaningful exchange of viewpoints on stated subject matter, with the intent of being informative.

 

Louis


Edited by hamluis, 30 August 2017 - 08:56 AM.


#3 MadmanRB

MadmanRB

    Spoon!!!!


  • Members
  • 1,971 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:No time for that when there is evil afoot!
  • Local time:06:14 AM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 12:38 PM

For me i will side with AMD, sure intel may give out better processors but their business practices and overpriced products are what turn me off to them


You know you want me baby!

Proud Linux user and dual booter.

Proud Vivaldi user.

 

gh8un5-6.png


#4 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 06:41 PM

I don't really side with either company, giving credit where credit is due for performance demonstrated in applications desired for intended use scenarios. When socket 7 K6-2/350 could keep up with a P2 in Quake, I bought it. When Slot A Athlons were defeating pre-Coppermine Pentium IIIs, I bought one. When Coppermine- PIII laid waste to the old Slot A, I built a P3/600C OC'd to 900 MHz...  When Athlon 64's were beating early P4's, I bought them. When 800 MHz FSB P4's were beating Athlon 64s, i bought one. When Athlon 64/3500+ at 2.0 GHz was laying waste to old P4/3 GHz CPUs, bought it...  As the current framerate king (within fiscal reason) is the 7700K, i bought it.

 

If/when I get around to upgrading again, I'll buy whatever is fastest (within reason, not really willing to pay a 100% premium for 5 % more gaming performance, this would be true even if a mythical 7790K existed at $560 as well), regardless of whose name is on the label.... same as I've done since 1997 or so. If /when AMD comes out with something matching/exceeding 7700k/8700K performance when I am looking to upgrade, I will gladly buy it.

 

If I perhaps all too routinely call out 'someone's' twice-daily BS, it will always be backed up with links/figures/charts/links, etc.... and usually be met with counterclaims of 'who cares about numbers', or , 'yes the platform uses more power, but the CPU alone uses 3 less watts' etc...

 

If someone asks the best processor for gaming while streaming, I will point out that tests show the 7700K lagging behind an 1800X....and recommend the R7 over the too-expensive 7900X, etc....

 

But, if someone asks the best gaming PC, you'd have to be on proverbial crack (edit: an exaggeration, I doubt anyone here is on crack!) to to claim any R7 is just as good with a mountain of online gaming testing evidence and 100's of gaming comparisons to the contrary. This is not saying the R7 or R5 can't deliver 100 or even 144 fps in some games, as often it can...; I only point out it can't keep up with the 7700K. (The deficit could be 2%, could be 10%, or could be 50%, depending on the game. When I 'play' CInebench, I' ll give more weight to those results. Likewise when/if I am going to work and need video editing done quickly within a cost reason, AM4 or even Threadripper might be quite compelling.)

 

 

If past/current users seeking advice over processor selection and system builds have their feelings hurt over someone else's dubious performance claims being debunked (admittedly, with a bit of factual sarcasm) with actual facts.....sorry. ( to said users, not the 'debunkee' :) ). And I don't call someone who purchases an AMD processor 'dumb' or 'stupid'; all prospective system purchasers ultimately vote with their actual wallets and hard earned money, and should perform due diligence in researching performance beforehand. Don't take my feeble word for it, and don't take Intel's , and don't take AMD's word for it, as both companies will cherry pick to suit their best case results. Compare in your top 3-4 uses...or ina barge of 20-30 games if needed. Do I claim 7700K is 'awesomely faster at 4k SLI'? No. Do I claim it might be 57% faster in 1080P in DOTA2, or 10-20% faster in BF1? Online reviewers and controlled testing say yes. 


Edited by MDD1963, 30 August 2017 - 06:57 PM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#5 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:04 PM

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/652649/questions-before-buying-new-cpu/?p=4322812

 

We learned so much that I am anticipating our two antagonists actually beginning a topic of their own (doesn't matter which initiates it) where this sort of thing can go on until all of us have long ceased to be members here at BC. In fact...I leave that invitation open as a challenge to each of them...a public debate/history/whatever...that is a valid topic with one of their names on it as OP. The membership eagerly awaits this, IMO.


Here it is. It seems I cannot make two separate posts, sad.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/655654/best-gaming-pc/?p=4322795
 

Best for games? Games only? No streaming?

Desire/need the highest average framerates, highest 1% lows, highest .1% lows in pretty much all games?

If ever there was a screaming case for the 7700K, I've not heard of it. Although some will simply never give it the nod it is due in any scenario. For some, your only choice is which Ryzen, and, no 57% frame rate deficit in DOTA2 or 20% deficit in BF1 (1080P)will convince them you will ever need those frames.


DOTA 2 was updated like 6 months ago. Also future games will likely want more cores. Those who disagree, may wonder why Intel is releasing six core part for gaming.
 

Food for thought: the 8700K is coming within a month or two, and folks are understandably curious is to how it might perform, game-wise...


 

The comparison test was posted but 3 weeks ago, perhaps Gamer's Nexus used a >6 month old version of the game? Doubtful, given their normally meticulous attention to detail, but, I can't rule it out. Or were these the improved results of the 6 month ago changes? (I don't play the game anyway, but, merely post these results when folks say 'there is no way a 7700K can ever outperform an 1800X by 40% at 1080P' etc...


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#6 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:33 PM

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/652649/questions-before-buying-new-cpu/?p=4322812

 

We learned so much that I am anticipating our two antagonists actually beginning a topic of their own (doesn't matter which initiates it) where this sort of thing can go on until all of us have long ceased to be members here at BC. In fact...I leave that invitation open as a challenge to each of them...a public debate/history/whatever...that is a valid topic with one of their names on it as OP. The membership eagerly awaits this, IMO.


Here it is. It seems I cannot make two separate posts, sad.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/655654/best-gaming-pc/?p=4322795
 

Best for games? Games only? No streaming?

Desire/need the highest average framerates, highest 1% lows, highest .1% lows in pretty much all games?

If ever there was a screaming case for the 7700K, I've not heard of it. Although some will simply never give it the nod it is due in any scenario. For some, your only choice is which Ryzen, and, no 57% frame rate deficit in DOTA2 or 20% deficit in BF1 (1080P)will convince them you will ever need those frames.


DOTA 2 was updated like 6 months ago. Also future games will likely want more cores. Those who disagree, may wonder why Intel is releasing six core part for gaming.
 

Food for thought: the 8700K is coming within a month or two, and folks are understandably curious is to how it might perform, game-wise...


It's slightly better because it has slightly better boost clocks, nothing else. Other than that, it's simply crap for gaming as using your logic, 4 cores is enough so adding two more cores would not help at all and still it will drive price higher.

 

 

Sometimes more cores indeed do not help in gaming; one need only look at routine Threadripper gaming results (scoring less than the 1800K) to see that. Is the "4-6 cores is best" already changing, or might it change even more drastically in the future? Perhaps. Certainly, in BF1, we see strong showings from rigs with higher core counts (6,8,10 cores) in what is one of my favorite games. Will the 8700K pull ahead of the 7700K if it is only clocked at 3.7 GHz? Doubtful. Might it pull ahead if clocked even at only 4.2 GHz? It might indeed. Might it cost $50 more? yes. WIll it be a 'must buy'? That is up to the prospective purchaser to weigh results in a few games and/or applications (whatever the intended usage scenario might be) balanced with cost. Even if a 7800X OC'd outperfoms the 7700K OC'd, I'd not necessarily buy it or recommend it due to the higher CPU cost and mainboard cost.

 

Will the 8700K warrant consideration by those interested in gaming? perhaps, we will know more when we see actual gaming results at assorted resolutions, and published/tested by someone other than Intel. I don't place a lot of weight by leaked Chinese results, so, perhaps we can extrapolate given a few Cinebench results and gaming results once those come forth at a busier pace, likely only one week before launch...whenever that is...

 

If 4 cores and 8 threads were not enough in MOST games, then 6 thread/12 cores would be outperforming it at slightly lesser or even at equal clock speeds, i'd suspect. There will certainly be a time of transition, just as when 2 cores were enough in 2006, then 3, then 4, now 4c/8thread, etc... 4 cores/4 thread was enough 2 years ago, now i feel 4 threads only suffers in some newer titles, based on actual testing.

 

If 8-12 cores at whatever clockspeed by whichever manufacturer makes it so that it's gaming perfomrance matches or exceeds that of the 7700K in most games at reasonable cost, I suspect gamers will flock to the higher core counts just so they can 'stream if they wish to', or, be ready for the 'more cores are better' transition.... whenever it comes...


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#7 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:39 PM

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/652649/questions-before-buying-new-cpu/?p=4322812

 

We learned so much that I am anticipating our two antagonists actually beginning a topic of their own (doesn't matter which initiates it) where this sort of thing can go on until all of us have long ceased to be members here at BC. In fact...I leave that invitation open as a challenge to each of them...a public debate/history/whatever...that is a valid topic with one of their names on it as OP. The membership eagerly awaits this, IMO.


Here it is. It seems I cannot make two separate posts, sad.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/655654/best-gaming-pc/?p=4322795
 

Best for games? Games only? No streaming?

Desire/need the highest average framerates, highest 1% lows, highest .1% lows in pretty much all games?

If ever there was a screaming case for the 7700K, I've not heard of it. Although some will simply never give it the nod it is due in any scenario. For some, your only choice is which Ryzen, and, no 57% frame rate deficit in DOTA2 or 20% deficit in BF1 (1080P)will convince them you will ever need those frames.


DOTA 2 was updated like 6 months ago. Also future games will likely want more cores. Those who disagree, may wonder why Intel is releasing six core part for gaming.
 

Food for thought: the 8700K is coming within a month or two, and folks are understandably curious is to how it might perform, game-wise...


It's slightly better because it has slightly better boost clocks, nothing else. Other than that, it's simply crap for gaming as using your logic, 4 cores is enough so adding two more cores would not help at all and still it will drive price higher.

 

Never claimed anything Ryzen was 'crap for gaming'...merely that Ryzen does not match the 7700k....; testing shows Ryzen routinely matches the i5-6500/7400.... That is not bad, it is 'good'. Maybe even 'excellent' for some. But not to all.


Edited by MDD1963, 30 August 2017 - 07:40 PM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#8 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:54 PM

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/652649/questions-before-buying-new-cpu/?p=4322812

 

We learned so much that I am anticipating our two antagonists actually beginning a topic of their own (doesn't matter which initiates it) where this sort of thing can go on until all of us have long ceased to be members here at BC. In fact...I leave that invitation open as a challenge to each of them...a public debate/history/whatever...that is a valid topic with one of their names on it as OP. The membership eagerly awaits this, IMO.


Here it is. It seems I cannot make two separate posts, sad.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/655654/best-gaming-pc/?p=4322795
 

Best for games? Games only? No streaming?

Desire/need the highest average framerates, highest 1% lows, highest .1% lows in pretty much all games?

If ever there was a screaming case for the 7700K, I've not heard of it. Although some will simply never give it the nod it is due in any scenario. For some, your only choice is which Ryzen, and, no 57% frame rate deficit in DOTA2 or 20% deficit in BF1 (1080P)will convince them you will ever need those frames.


DOTA 2 was updated like 6 months ago. Also future games will likely want more cores. Those who disagree, may wonder why Intel is releasing six core part for gaming.
 

Food for thought: the 8700K is coming within a month or two, and folks are understandably curious is to how it might perform, game-wise...


It's slightly better because it has slightly better boost clocks, nothing else. Other than that, it's simply crap for gaming as using your logic, 4 cores is enough so adding two more cores would not help at all and still it will drive price higher.

 

I fully expect at some point in the future that games then will perform better with 6-8 cores over 4c/8t designs at higher clock speeds. When will this happen? and in a variety of games? Unknown.

 

I've seen some BF1 testing which perhaps shows 6-8 core 6800/6850k models doing very well... even if at slightly lower clocks, perhaps that time is arriving, at least with BF1. I'd define that time as 'having arrived' once the newer games perform better with more cores'...


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#9 Drillingmachine

Drillingmachine
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2,093 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:14 PM

Posted 31 August 2017 - 11:02 AM


The comparison test was posted but 3 weeks ago, perhaps Gamer's Nexus used a >6 month old version of the game? Doubtful, given their normally meticulous attention to detail, but, I can't rule it out. Or were these the improved results of the 6 month ago changes? (I don't play the game anyway, but, merely post these results when folks say 'there is no way a 7700K can ever outperform an 1800X by 40% at 1080P' etc...


Many sites use old benchmarks as it's understandably quite time consuming to run few dozen benchmarks again.

Sometimes more cores indeed do not help in gaming; one need only look at routine Threadripper gaming results (scoring less than the 1800K) to see that. Is the "4-6 cores is best" already changing, or might it change even more drastically in the future? Perhaps. Certainly, in BF1, we see strong showings from rigs with higher core counts (6,8,10 cores) in what is one of my favorite games. Will the 8700K pull ahead of the 7700K if it is only clocked at 3.7 GHz? Doubtful. Might it pull ahead if clocked even at only 4.2 GHz? It might indeed. Might it cost $50 more? yes. WIll it be a 'must buy'? That is up to the prospective purchaser to weigh results in a few games and/or applications (whatever the intended usage scenario might be) balanced with cost. Even if a 7800X OC'd outperfoms the 7700K OC'd, I'd not necessarily buy it or recommend it due to the higher CPU cost and mainboard cost.
 
Will the 8700K warrant consideration by those interested in gaming? perhaps, we will know more when we see actual gaming results at assorted resolutions, and published/tested by someone other than Intel. I don't place a lot of weight by leaked Chinese results, so, perhaps we can extrapolate given a few Cinebench results and gaming results once those come forth at a busier pace, likely only one week before launch...whenever that is...
 
If 4 cores and 8 threads were not enough in MOST games, then 6 thread/12 cores would be outperforming it at slightly lesser or even at equal clock speeds, i'd suspect. There will certainly be a time of transition, just as when 2 cores were enough in 2006, then 3, then 4, now 4c/8thread, etc... 4 cores/4 thread was enough 2 years ago, now i feel 4 threads only suffers in some newer titles, based on actual testing.
 
If 8-12 cores at whatever clockspeed by whichever manufacturer makes it so that it's gaming perfomrance matches or exceeds that of the 7700K in most games at reasonable cost, I suspect gamers will flock to the higher core counts just so they can 'stream if they wish to', or, be ready for the 'more cores are better' transition.... whenever it comes...


Battlefield 4 supports cores better than Battlefield 1. This time higher number tells about newer title. That may even be true. Anyway, using BF1 as example about core usage does not work as it's predecessor used cores better. So perhaps Intel paid so that BF1 was made to use less cores. Or then BF1 just sucks there.

If current games don't suffer from 4 cores & 8 threads offered by 7700K, then extra threads offered by 8700K will not help at all. Almost same words that can be used for Ryzen 6-core vs 7700K applies there. However as consumer class have 6-core offerings from AMD And Intel, probably future games will finally begin to use more than 4 cores.

I fully expect at some point in the future that games then will perform better with 6-8 cores over 4c/8t designs at higher clock speeds. When will this happen? and in a variety of games? Unknown.
 
I've seen some BF1 testing which perhaps shows 6-8 core 6800/6850k models doing very well... even if at slightly lower clocks, perhaps that time is arriving, at least with BF1. I'd define that time as 'having arrived' once the newer games perform better with more cores'...


Again, problem with BF1 is that BF4, much older title, used cores better so BF1 is more example of decline of core usage, not improvement.

#10 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:14 AM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 04:46 AM

I agree those darn games are just not optimized for all these AMD cores.



#11 jonuk76

jonuk76

  • Members
  • 1,946 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales, UK
  • Local time:11:14 AM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 10:26 AM

Question for the chaps using Ryzen.  How is platform stability now?  Have you had any stability issues?  Did you have any problems with memory compatibility or otherwise getting the machine built and in a working state?  

 

Hypothetically, if your job depended on system stability, and performance and price were secondary, would you still go with Ryzen?



#12 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:15 PM

 


The comparison test was posted but 3 weeks ago, perhaps Gamer's Nexus used a >6 month old version of the game? Doubtful, given their normally meticulous attention to detail, but, I can't rule it out. Or were these the improved results of the 6 month ago changes? (I don't play the game anyway, but, merely post these results when folks say 'there is no way a 7700K can ever outperform an 1800X by 40% at 1080P' etc...


Many sites use old benchmarks as it's understandably quite time consuming to run few dozen benchmarks again.

Sometimes more cores indeed do not help in gaming; one need only look at routine Threadripper gaming results (scoring less than the 1800K) to see that. Is the "4-6 cores is best" already changing, or might it change even more drastically in the future? Perhaps. Certainly, in BF1, we see strong showings from rigs with higher core counts (6,8,10 cores) in what is one of my favorite games. Will the 8700K pull ahead of the 7700K if it is only clocked at 3.7 GHz? Doubtful. Might it pull ahead if clocked even at only 4.2 GHz? It might indeed. Might it cost $50 more? yes. WIll it be a 'must buy'? That is up to the prospective purchaser to weigh results in a few games and/or applications (whatever the intended usage scenario might be) balanced with cost. Even if a 7800X OC'd outperfoms the 7700K OC'd, I'd not necessarily buy it or recommend it due to the higher CPU cost and mainboard cost.
 
Will the 8700K warrant consideration by those interested in gaming? perhaps, we will know more when we see actual gaming results at assorted resolutions, and published/tested by someone other than Intel. I don't place a lot of weight by leaked Chinese results, so, perhaps we can extrapolate given a few Cinebench results and gaming results once those come forth at a busier pace, likely only one week before launch...whenever that is...
 
If 4 cores and 8 threads were not enough in MOST games, then 6 thread/12 cores would be outperforming it at slightly lesser or even at equal clock speeds, i'd suspect. There will certainly be a time of transition, just as when 2 cores were enough in 2006, then 3, then 4, now 4c/8thread, etc... 4 cores/4 thread was enough 2 years ago, now i feel 4 threads only suffers in some newer titles, based on actual testing.
 
If 8-12 cores at whatever clockspeed by whichever manufacturer makes it so that it's gaming perfomrance matches or exceeds that of the 7700K in most games at reasonable cost, I suspect gamers will flock to the higher core counts just so they can 'stream if they wish to', or, be ready for the 'more cores are better' transition.... whenever it comes...


Battlefield 4 supports cores better than Battlefield 1. This time higher number tells about newer title. That may even be true. Anyway, using BF1 as example about core usage does not work as it's predecessor used cores better. So perhaps Intel paid so that BF1 was made to use less cores. Or then BF1 just sucks there.

If current games don't suffer from 4 cores & 8 threads offered by 7700K, then extra threads offered by 8700K will not help at all. Almost same words that can be used for Ryzen 6-core vs 7700K applies there. However as consumer class have 6-core offerings from AMD And Intel, probably future games will finally begin to use more than 4 cores.

I fully expect at some point in the future that games then will perform better with 6-8 cores over 4c/8t designs at higher clock speeds. When will this happen? and in a variety of games? Unknown.
 
I've seen some BF1 testing which perhaps shows 6-8 core 6800/6850k models doing very well... even if at slightly lower clocks, perhaps that time is arriving, at least with BF1. I'd define that time as 'having arrived' once the newer games perform better with more cores'...


Again, problem with BF1 is that BF4, much older title, used cores better so BF1 is more example of decline of core usage, not improvement.

 

I just assumed that since the 6900/6950K at moderate clocks were still performing well (in fact, a 7900 10 core is on top in BF1 results last time I checked), that perhaps BF1 was an example that did well with more cores...

 

I do agree that it is quite possible jumping to 6c/12t and above might yield no benefits except in games known to fare better with more cores. When /if more PC games deliver fare better under more cores, the results will clearly reflect as much.

 

I've not studied BF4 core scaling results as much. Are we sure the game fared better under rmore cores, or, was it perhaps just not as cruel to weaker pre-Ryzen AMD 6-8 core cpus? You might be right, I'll review the results before ever assuming your conclusion might be not jaded in red-colored glasses. :)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#13 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:46 PM

:)

 

Interesting. Before even reading the results, I had an intuition/inkling feeling you would not have chosen it unless it in fact displayed a complete lack of CPU scaling so as to make AMD processors look 'more equal', based on your last 'trends'; one good way to do that would certainly be to choose an utterly and completely GPU-bound title's results, perhaps.

 

Now, lets look at the 1080P results, shall we?

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

 

Based on this very first example when searching for "battelfield 4 processor scaling', I note an almost complete lack of scaling even at moderate 1080P with better/faster processors.  it seemed here that almost any 8 threads at a moderate speed' would suffice, as we seemed mostly GPU-bound in even this 1080P example.... (That seemed to be the authors conclusion too, as Intel's stopped demonstrating better performance at 2.4 GHz or so, while the weaker CPUs did scale upward in clock speed somewhat.)

 

So BF4 is your 'better core scaling example' gaming example?

 

A scaling example of 4 fps total spread  (with the X6 at the bottom, oddly enough) ranging from 94 fps to 98 fps (a grand 4.2% spread), from slowest to fastest? (I discounted the results of the weakest X2/X3 and X4 Athlons as they were notably and pathetically behind the others, so as to only discuss the cpus that seemed 'strong enough' to feed the GPU.

 

Do you have some other shining examples of core scaling? (Maybe we can find some 800x600 results that demonstrate your hypothesis)


Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#14 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:01 PM

Can't find any comparisons of much more recent processors compared in BF4, and, with strongest GPUs....(which is known to actually allow some cpu scaling, btw)

 

It would have been nice to see even lower res examples pitting the R3/R5/R7 compared to perhaps see some alleged core scaling in the game, ....perhaps. Hope springs eternal, however.


Edited by MDD1963, 01 September 2017 - 08:03 PM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060


#15 MDD1963

MDD1963

  • Members
  • 663 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:14 PM

Posted 01 September 2017 - 08:31 PM

 


The comparison test was posted but 3 weeks ago, perhaps Gamer's Nexus used a >6 month old version of the game? Doubtful, given their normally meticulous attention to detail, but, I can't rule it out. Or were these the improved results of the 6 month ago changes? (I don't play the game anyway, but, merely post these results when folks say 'there is no way a 7700K can ever outperform an 1800X by 40% at 1080P' etc...


Many sites use old benchmarks as it's understandably quite time consuming to run few dozen benchmarks again.

 

 

You con't actually state that you suspect/ think that the reviewer in question actually used old versions, but merely state that 'some sites use old benchmarks'...; shall we just assume you are correct, or do you have some recent comparisons showing vastly differing results with your allegedly updated 6 months ago version? (Glad they updated it apparently even before Ryzen's launch, that was quite nice of them)


Edited by MDD1963, 01 September 2017 - 08:33 PM.

Asus Z270A Prime/7700K/32 GB DDR4-3200/GTX1060





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users