Crazy vs Fullinfusion vs Cadaveca quick bench off

[Wile E]

What's the point of comparing cpus in games? All the current mid-high cpus will game just fine for 99% of everything you throw at them. There is no better choice for just gaming at this point anymore. Features are more important in choosing a platform at this point. Intel wins in the arena, as far as I am concerned, if only for having both Xfire and SLI support.

I mean, realistically, when will you notice a performance difference between a 1090T and a 2600k in real world gaming, when all else is equal? You won't, unless there is a platform specific bug in one of the games you happen to play regularly.

Short version = useless thread

 

[cadaveca]

Short version = useless thread

For you, OK. Thanks for coming in. Seems you agree, so yeah, would be pointless...I was just called in for backup to show the same.

 

[fullinfusion]

What's the point of comparing cpus in games? All the current mid-high cpus will game just fine for 99% of everything you throw at them. There is no better choice for just gaming at this point anymore. Features are more important in choosing a platform at this point. Intel wins in the arena, as far as I am concerned, if only for having both Xfire and SLI support.

I mean, realistically, when will you notice a performance difference between a 1090T and a 2600k in real world gaming, when all else is equal? You won't, unless there is a platform specific bug in one of the games you happen to play regularly.

Short version = useless thread

Well Ray made this thread, tell him it's useless. From what I seen the x6 works harder then I7 does in multi thread.

 

[cadaveca]

Well Ray made this thread, tell him it's useless. From what I seen the x6 works harder then I7 does in multi thread.

Made at your behest. Nice try playing the duck.

 

[fullinfusion]

Made at your behest. Nice try playing the duck.

Playing the duck? Im the only one asking for a bench to play against the I7 bro!

But whatever, I'll play when Dozer hits the market lol.... Can you say STOMP? I7 is just ahead of x6.... but really how's it going to play against a clocked x6 or dozer? not well Im thinking... But till then who knows?

Troy from amd says the dozer is fast as fuck but till then who know's lol....

 

[Wile E]

I think 8-core skt2011 Intels are gonna smash anything AMD. AMD has been overstating their performance since Phenom I.

 

[cadaveca]

Playing the duck? Im the only one asking for a bench to play against the I7 bro!

But whatever, I'll play when Dozer hits the market lol.... Can you say STOMP?

Not really. For my uses, and with multiple GPUs, memory bandwidth is key.


Competition is good for the OEMs, but it's not my personal battle to fight.

I'd like to see CPUs play less of a role in gaming, and alot of the CPU moved directly onto the GPU. The most really CPU-intensive stuff I do is editing pictures for reviews, and running the benches to match.

So really, the point in comparing, just doesn't matter to me. For the guys that crunch and what not, they have much more interest in CPU power.

I think 8-core skt2011 Intels are gonna smash anything AMD. AMD has been overstating their performance since Phenom I.

There might be enough of a divergence in CPU tech that code will play a more important role than raw grunt. That's not something I really look forward to. If we get another AMD/Nvidia battle between things like Phys-X and such, I'm gonna stop buying computers, and go back to consoles. Next gen should have some nice graphics.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

well if it does come down to coding we already know Intel wins simply do to there 80% market share, software development will go with whomever has the biggest chunk of the market aka largest user base that can make sure of the code, so if it does come down to coding due to architectural divergence, then yea Intel wins.. lol

 

[Wile E]

I'm basing that guess on nothing more than the massive R&D budget Intel has compared to AMD. They haven't exactly been napping since AMD woke the sleeping giant in the 939 days.

 

[tallyhoe]

What's the point of comparing cpus in games? All the current mid-high cpus will game just fine for 99% of everything you throw at them.

Depends on what games you're playing and how many GPUs and what resolution you're playing at. SC2/Resident Evil 5/WoW for example have a main thread that is easily bottlenecked. AMD's lower IPC will affect fps in that regard. Most games aren't highly threaded so the extra cores on the X6 offer no benefit for them.

If you're playing with triple monitors you'll need multiple GPUs. Depending on whether you use AMD or Nvidia cards, there is a big difference between CPUs. Nvidia typically requires more CPU to achieve the same level of fps. Especially in 3/4-way scaling.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

actually its the opposite,

Nvidia gpus have LESS overhead then AMD gpus,

the Nvidia driver has less overhead and is more well streamlined,

The difference on Nvidia from Intel to AMD is minor difference on AMD gpus with Intel or AMD is extreme,

Bad Company 2 theres a near 50% performance difference between AMD and Intel, with AMD gpus, Same applies to Dragon Age Origins, etc.

overall the Intel cpus dominate games that effectively use multiple cores and multi gpus, as cadaveca pointed on its memory bandwidth, and from my own testing id agree 100% with that logic, as of right now im losing 30% of my performance being on an AMD cpu in alot of titles. Single card not so bad things are fairly even except a few games. multi gpu holy shit batman is there a difference.

 

[Wile E]

Depends on what games you're playing and how many GPUs and what resolution you're playing at. SC2/Resident Evil 5/WoW for example have a main thread that is easily bottlenecked. AMD's lower IPC will affect fps in that regard. Most games aren't highly threaded so the extra cores on the X6 offer no benefit for them.

If you're playing with triple monitors you'll need multiple GPUs. Depending on whether you use AMD or Nvidia cards, there is a big difference between CPUs. Nvidia typically requires more CPU to achieve the same level of fps. Especially in 3/4-way scaling.

Right, which you might be able to see in benchmark numbers, but are not likely to notice in real usage, with only a few exceptions.

 

[tallyhoe]

actually its the opposite,

Nvidia gpus have LESS overhead then AMD gpus,

the Nvidia driver has less overhead and is more well streamlined

You couldn't be further from the truth. AMD 5970 cards can easily be maxed out on even an old system like a Core 2 Duo or X3. Fermi has driver issues with anything under an i5/i7 CPU. There's plenty of threads on low GPU usage on BC2 with Fermi cards and developers on the Nvidia forums have stated that it's a problem they're working on but haven't produced a fix yet. They mention that anything below Nehalem is bottlenecking their cards... It's just poorly coded drivers.

When specifically talking about AMD graphics card CPU requirements: in multi-GPU scaling, AMD requires less CPU than Nvidia. One example of this is the recent [H] reviews of 6990+6970 vs 580 tri-sli. One review was done with an i7 920 at 3.6Ghz and the other with a 2600K at 4.8Ghz. Nvidia benefitted tremendously from the CPU upgrade while AMD had little or none in some tests. All this means is that Nvidia needs a more powerful CPU to get the full potential out of their cards.

The difference on Nvidia from Intel to AMD is minor difference on AMD gpus with Intel or AMD is extreme,

Bad Company 2 theres a near 50% performance difference between AMD and Intel, with AMD gpus, Same applies to Dragon Age Origins, etc.

overall the Intel cpus dominate games that effectively use multiple cores and multi gpus, as cadaveca pointed on its memory bandwidth, and from my own testing id agree 100% with that logic, as of right now im losing 30% of my performance being on an AMD cpu in alot of titles. Single card not so bad things are fairly even except a few games. multi gpu holy shit batman is there a difference.

AMD's low IPC is a different subject. For games that have 1 or 2 threads like SC2/WoW/Resident Evil 5 etc. the lower IPC of AMD CPUs hinder performance as those threads max out a core more easily. BC2, while supporting up to 6 threads, still can be bottlenecked if the main thread is under 4Ghz. Don't confuse this with GPU CPU requirements though.

Right, which you might be able to see in benchmark numbers, but are not likely to notice in real usage, with only a few exceptions.

Depends which games you're testing with. SC2 for example is a well known game that shows the difference between AMD and Intel IPC. BC2 would be another. More cores are great for highly threaded apps and servers, but for games which tend to use fewer threads, they'd prefer stronger cores than more weaker ones.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

look dont give me your bullshit ive had 4870x2 5850x2 and 6970x2 it dosent take a genius to compare usage to reviews

fact is on most titles the games only utilize each gpu to around 55% in crossfire.
again this is on AMD cpu swapping out to 2x 570s on 965BE on a rig similar to mine on a cheaper 790gx board performance in nearly all games is slightly higher with there cpu at stock vs mine overclocked in a majority of multi threaded titles.

fact is the H review is an exception to the rule and heres why anything pre 6000 series is far worse in multi gpu scaling

the 6000 vs 400 vs 500 series is a bit different for the first time in nearly 3-4 years AMD improved the scaling on there gpus with changes to the hardware this is why 6850 / 6870s scale better then 5850s and 5870s

the real point is here I have a system and i KNOW its bottlenecked,

theres only 2-3 games where i reach parity with Intel Based systems

those games would be

Alien Vs Predator
Metro 2033
Stalker series

in almost every other titles out of 100+ games i own my 2 gpus paired with an intel cpu will give far better frame rates.

Nvidias gpus were notorious for better scaling then AMD up untill the recent releases of the 6900 series

and im not talking triple gpu im talking dual gpu, as triple gpu scaling is hit or miss depending on the title and neither company really focuses on it as 99.9% of the users on this planet wont be running 3x gpus 2 gpus is the segment both focus on and the fact is in a 2 gpu situation on an AMD vs Intel cpu the Nvidia cards have less driver overhead that limits performance this stems from the System memory bandwidth on each platform

AMD tends to hit 12-14gb/s Intel tends to be 18-25gb/s the extra bandwidth on intel gives better scaling but on an AMD cpu Nvidia tends to scale a bit better in general to less overall driver overhead. now driver overhead causing a limit to performance is different then the accepted scaling range of a multi gpu setup so my point is dont confuse general scaling with a driver overhead causing limitations.

the simple fact is AMD needs more system bandwidth then Nvidia to accomplish the same thing. granted this mostly applies to high end gpus

6800s and nvidia 560 and below wont encounter the same limitations

i believe cadaveca was the one who semi figured out that AMD cpus are only really capable of properly feeding around 1600 shaders on the AMD / ATi side. after which bandwidth becomes the limiting factor to scaling as overclocking the AMDs northbridge results in improvements equal to the increase

 

[tallyhoe]

Um, so you admit that this is how it is for current gen GPUs but then go on to complain about 2-3 year old GPUs? Who cares about them? The fact that Nvidia developers have admitted to it ends the conversation. You can't max out a 580 even on a 1090T. Sure the 1090T should be capable of providing enough instructions to the GPU but in real world usage it doesn't work out that way and Nvidia has said they're working on it for the past 6 months.

It's Nvidia that everyone complains about poor scaling with lately and that's only because most review sites don't use fast enough CPUs in them. Nvidia does have pretty good scaling when you OC ~ 5Ghz.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

my point is if you dont have good enough system bandwidth on AMD the AMD gpus hit a limit long before Nvidia does

IE amd gpus scale better but on an AMD cpu Nvidia scales better, because AMDs driver has more overhead in terms of system bandwidth needed.

simply meaning

on AMD CPU the IMC is so weak that the systems overall bandwidth is to low and it effects the scaling of crossfire systems to the point nvidia DOES scale better meaning that nvidias driver might be a bit fucked but AMDs drivers are using more bandwidth overall and thus causing a greater hit to performance.

 

[tallyhoe]

As long as you OC the northbridge on Phenom IIs they have enough bandwidth to max out even 2 6990s. They do have problems with their crossfire bridge beyond 2 cards at 12M pixels and they do take a bigger hit in performance going from 8x to 4x PCIe lanes than Nvidia as well.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

well i have a phenom II im at 1333mhx 6 7 6 21 1T timings with the NB at 2600 giving a 1 to 1 ratio of read speeds to L3 cache speeds and im sorry to say it is NOT fast enough.

the Hit is there and its extreme. I can say 2x 6970s vs 2x 570s on a 965be at the same timings on ram same overclock 2x 570s offer better performance in a larger number of games vs the 6970s which usually are faster then the 570s. its the drivers overhead on AMDs side,

Nvidia needs more bandwidth for communication between gpus, AMD needs more system bandwidth to feed the cards. Core i3 i5 i7 no matter 1st gen or second gen offer that bandwidth which allows 6900 series to stretch ahead on AMD nvidia can stretch ahead because the systems bandwidth for system memory dosent hit the nvidia cards as hard.

basically at 12-13gb of system ram bandwidth 6900 series are bottlenecked, i can atest that 5850s were bottlenecked but not as badly. 4870x2 was perfectly fine.

it went from 1600 shaders to 2880 to 3000+ after 1600 the system bandwidth becomes the limitation now yea NB speeds help but the problem is after 1500mhz and 2800nb theres not alot of gains to be had the increase in bandwidth is minimum and the bottleneck remains. the better hardware in the 6900s lets xfire scale a bit better in this situation but it dosent remove that limit. It also depends on the games tested.

example Metro 2033 there is no issue but Crysis Crysis warhead, the scaling is less then it should be do to that overhead. this is again where nvidia gets a bit of a boost instead.

Its all about system ram bandwidth

average Phenom II system is about 13gb/s average Intel core i3 i 5 i7 can be 19-22gb/s for the typical user and thats what allows multi gpu config on the Intel side stretch its legs in far more titles. its when that system bottleneck is gone that AMD pulls ahead of nvidia on scaling.

 

[LifeOnMars]

I agree 100% with Crazyeyes(he the man ) Cadaveca also.

It's not hard to understand is it, I mean the phenom II's architecture dates back how long! They are simply weaker chips (no one is saying they are bad) I give alot of credit to AMD for what they have been able to do with modifications. I myself had a dual core windsor and a 1090T@4.2GHz and really enjoyed them both.

You also have older gpu's which are slower than the latest and greatest, but it doesn't mean they are bad or can't put out playable frames for games just less than the slightly better, new cards. An HD 4870X2 for example can still put out decent frames but with no DX 11. We are enthusiasts, we want the best from our hobby. This normally means the latest and greatest. Period.

Roll with the times people or enjoy what you have. Simple


(I'm going to update my HD 5870 when Battlefield 3 comes around, not because I think the card will not be able to play it but because I want the best experience of playing the game with good image quality settings and top notch framerates) It is the nature of the beast.

 

[tallyhoe]

I wasn't arguing that AMD processors have lower "system bandwidth" but that ATI GPUs require less CPU than Fermi cards. Take a 955 X4 or Q9650 for example. Both can utilize 99% of a 6990 consistently yet they both have problems averaging above 80% usage on a single 460.


Here is another example of Nvidia cards requiring 3 cores before they start kicking off vs only 2 with the AMD card:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/5