Back on topic http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/ Cpu and gpu benchmarks on bf4 single player
Do we know if the benchmark here is at normal graphics settings (so GPU restricted) or a low-res test to stress the CPU? If it's the latter then the whole thing is academic, really. EDIT: Ah yes, I see the above benchmarks are at gaming resolutions; 3570k beats everything AMD (stock speeds). Everything is almost equal anyway though; my X3 720 wasn't restrictive in BF3, didn't notice the switch to a 3570k. Looks like the X3 is fine for BF4 also. It's still all about the graphics.
I3220 holding its own in those benchmarks. 4 FPS between them all. Only the older x2, x3, x4 are really struggling. 290x does sorta dominate lol.
Would have been interesting to see them try to overclock some of the lower end chips, rather than the top end ones to see if there were any gains to be had. (I'm assuming there would be but you never know)
When the multiplayer benchmarks arrive the men will be separated from the boys. You can halve those benchmark results, and the CPU will be leaned on very heavily.
Finding a full 64player to test each CPU and GPU will be extremely difficult to repeat. Multiplayer benchmarks are influenced by too many factors its why most review sites dont use them. Very hard to repeat your exact same stuff when your been shot at by real players. Most graphics reviews are conducted with CPUs at stock settings, The fact they overclocked 2 of the cpus to give comparisons is a bonus.
Yeah it's unusual to see a review where they used an overclocked CPU. It's much more fair, given that any unlocked CPU is boring and plain until you crank on it. The Core 2 I had (the very first one) was 1.8ghz stock. It easily did 3ghz on the bus. So basically it went from being pretty crap and boring to being the best CPU money could buy, all at the flick of a few soft switches in bios (change the bus to 533 basically)
AMD had said that their own 290x can saturate pci-e 3.0 x16, so which is it ITX with a discrete GPU isn't popular at all, my mistake. let me just ignore the bitfenix prodigy, silverstone ft03, and the many many other ITX cases with support for long video cards and big PSUs which have blown up in popularity over the last couple years
OK another of your rather silly posts. I didn't even reply to most of your first one but I'll do my best here. I have no idea if the 290x can saturate PCIE 3.0 bandwidth. Maybe they are talking about quadfire? who knows? All I do know is that nothing available at the time could fully saturate PCIE 2.0. Why would AMD boast about something their own boards and CPUs are not even capable of? no idea. If you think that the money from ITX comes from people building into Prodigys and putting high end GPUs in there is where the money comes from? you were sorely misled. The money comes from people wanting a cheap PC that's small, that they can use to send emails and watch a bit of Youtube on. Or, the ever increasingly popular media PC. I emailed a lady at Asrock who I have known for years and years (and helped test their beta bioses and private bioses) and her response was this - The reason why there are no AM3+ mini-ITX boards is that this platform does not offer integrated graphics. So you would always need to install a graphics card. That makes it unattractive for mini-ITX. Of all chipsets that can support AM3+, only the AMD 9xx series are paired with SB950. Only SB950 has native SATA3 support. And no AMD 9xx chipset offers integrated graphics, so you always need to add a graphics card to those boards. I would also like to see some mATX AMD9xx boards. I will pass on that suggestion of yours to Taipei. Thanks! Best regards, ASRock Support I think Asrock, as a business, knows what sells and what wouldn't.
That's single player mate. I can hit the rev limiter of 200 FPS in BF3 single player quite easily with my 8320 and 670 SLI. Load up multi? I'm lucky to see max of 80 FPS with mins hovering around the high 40s. Totally different game and results tbh.
the quote wasn't referencing quadfire, AMD (and nvidia) don't really bring up quad GPU configs anymore due to the lack of scaling you tell me, they're the one who made the claim. they're BSing on one front or another nobody needs a HTPC only for watching films in this day and age, it's wasteful. you can stream video to a TV with much smaller and more efficient devices than a PC steambox? and don't even try bringing up richland, i want to play games made in the past 5 years i still want you to explain to me how the 4770k isn't a quad core processor
Do you have a link to confirm what you're saying? one that, like, you know, backs up what you're saying so it's not just guff? Any time I want to back up a point I make I use links. Why don't you apply for a job at Asus, Asrock or some one else? you seem to know the market better than they do, so can explain to them what a big mistake not releasing an ITX board with 8+2 VRMs and enormous heatsinks that needs a GPU is.
Companies do already have high end mitx boards on the intel side, why not on AMD? That's what annoys me. (well, it's one of the many things in this world that annoys me)
