- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,380 (0.29/day)
System Name | Desktop |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Xeon E5-1680v2 |
Motherboard | ASUS Sabertooth X79 |
Cooling | Intel AIO |
Memory | 8x4GB DDR3 1866MHz |
Video Card(s) | EVGA GTX 970 SC |
Storage | Crucial MX500 1TB + 2x WD RE 4TB HDD |
Display(s) | HP ZR24w |
Case | Fractal Define XL Black |
Audio Device(s) | Schiit Modi Uber/Sony CDP-XA20ES/Pioneer CT-656>Sony TA-F630ESD>Sennheiser HD600 |
Power Supply | Corsair HX850 |
Mouse | Logitech G603 |
Keyboard | Logitech G613 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
Actually, I can play Dirt3 just fine with a single 6950 on three monitors. It's NOT 60 FPS, but it's more than playable. It's not realyl ug limited, but it IS such a res that it's possible a few things are at paly here. This bench is partially useless.
Encode numbers are 8 AMD BD cores VS. 4 cores of Intel, and I do not see BD doubling i5 performance.
Of course, the starting CODEC for the video file matters too.
1. Agree but it's ~2FPS difference which really doesn't tell anything.
2. It would be double if it had the same performance per core which probably does not, but I know what you meant.
What really bothers me for quite a long time is the way AMD chose to call it an 8 core CPU so everyone would assume it obliterates any 6 core CPU.
chew* himself made a lot of "rants" about AMD calling it an 8 core. This is the AMD's patent of a core:
Which I believe a BD core doesn't look like it. I'll also quote him:
Only reason I have tried to point this out many times so far is due to peoples expectations. Those expecting 100% native 8 core multithreaded performance have unrealistic expectations. Hopefully this gives them a better idea so they can have more realistic expectations.
I know we should all be just looking at it as an 8 core because AMD says so but then again people at this forum aren't really average computer users and should look at these things differently.