Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquinus
You're going to notice difference when you start adjusting image quality. When you start jacking up AA you're taxing the GPU more than the CPU... but if you have a nice video card, that might be exactly what you want. Once again I will reference Guru3d's CPU scaling review with the Radeon HD 7970, and for heavily multi-threaded games such as Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3, you will see minimal improvement by upgrading the CPU beyond Phenom II quad-core (modern that is, not an AM2+ like mine, not to say my 940 doesn't handle Crysis 2 fairly well at full graphics with a 6870.)
Seriously though, it's a review worth checking out if you haven't already.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon...rmance-review/
Bulldozer isn't bad, it's just not as good as Sandy Bridge. The sooner everyone realizes that, the less flaming there will be. Also you can only improve a processors IPC so much before you hit a top-end limit. As software develops for post anno-2012, you will notice a lot more software utilizing more threads, and for bulldozer, an architecture that scales almost linearly with the amount of cores (unlike Intel's HyperThreading,) you will see that in the future more cores will result in more speed. Similar to video encoding on the FX-8150, something that it keeps up with the 2600k very well.
Reference for video encoding: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx...ssor-review/14
(Yes, I know that the FX-8150 doesn't do as well on other benchmarks, but this is a practical application where the FX-8150 is more than adequate when all cores are being used.)
Also keep in mind that when you're playing a game that can't use all 8 cores, you have that extra power to do other things. Virtual machines? Folding? Video encoding? Yeah, it can do that. :| |
Yes, and can i suggest the CPU's workload is not affected by screen resolution? so at a low resolution like 1024x768 is basically the maximum speed the CPU is capable of running that game at. Hence the consistent 120 FPS, the FX is simply topping out at the speed it can render the image at, like the refresh rate of your monitor.
Crank the resolution up, the GPU needs to do more, and more to keep up, enable sufficiently demanding anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering the GPU will no longer be able to keep up with the CPU, just because this test shows the 2500K running 200 FPS compared with 120 FPS with the FX is not to say the 2500K is the more powerful CPU for THIS game.
If you look at this test more closely you can see where the ceiling vs the ceiling of the FX meet, or not... as at the very least they match in the highest test, if not the FX starts to overtake,- it is computing more FPS in the last test (all be it very slight) the FX FPS has barely moved from where is was at low resolution, where the 2500K has dropped by about 50%.
If you look at another review sites (mentioning no names here) test of BF3 it shows an FX-4100 matching a 2500K and as near as makes no difference an FX-8150 and 2600K with an i3 2100 not far behind at high graphics settings / resolution.
I would not write the FX Blog off, had a higher test been published here we MIGHT be having a very different conversation.
@ Aquinus, i have a 6 core Thuban, clock for clock it beats a 2500K in multi-threaded benchmarks, an FX-8150 beats my Thuban in the same benchmarks, you compare them in a Linux OS where thread allocation is far more efficient than in Windows and AMD monster Intel.
CRAY are using 16 thread Bulldozer CPU's on a Linux based OS for there new supper computer.