So no actual evidence then? Like, benchmarks. Its very easy to make throwaway comments about performance, but we need to see some legit data to back it up.
I run my machine on very high settings with BF3 and the CPU usage, across all 4 cores, is barely 20%.
I'm running a 980x with a pair of GTX295's in tri-SLI (the fourth GPU runs my third monitor) and I get well over 80 fps in BF3 multiplayer. I had to tweak a lot of the settings, but it's 100% playable! I have no worries about my CPU handling BF4, but I am going to replace the cards. This thread is relevant to my interests
Even the most modern multi threaded game of which there is a few will not take a cpu passed 50% usage. Even in Crysis 3 1 thread is still maxed out whilst the rest are doing little to nothing on my own system. Sleeping dogs is another fine example of that 100% 1 thread 7 threads doing 10-15%. Not found a game that can run a cpu to its max poten, And most games gain more fps from overclocking more than they do from adding more cores. Simply test for anyone who douts this, Run your cpu at default speeds then overclock it in most games you will gain fps. As Most games still require a fast single thread. ( pretty much all of them in cpu bound tests. 640x480 all settings on min and check your fps out at default then overclock, These are real cpu game tests) Seen alot of people show game cpu tests as been everything on max if you dont have a gpu that can handle max your gonna lose fps. And even the fastest single card solution out there a nvidia Titan will struggle to max out certain games. ( using duel gpu or sli cfx solutions is a dodgy idea due to driver support and wether the mobo can even supply the amount of lanes it needs 8x8x min for sli cfx) 7970 / 680 if you can get one is the best sub £300 cards at the moment. Single card this is. If you go cfx or sli I would avoid the AMD stuff.
THANK YOU! Someone who actually has something older and not the latest gen. knows what I am talking about. I'm not saying I've got the old gen, I have a 4770K sat next to me on my table... but there's still no sense in saying he will need a new CPU. Show me proof that BF4 will use 100% of an 8 core (fake 8 cores, more like 4 in reality) CPU... Intel still rule the roost, even with half the actual core count, and they will for the foreseeable future. This man speaks the truth. Very well said. Sorry Teppic. Until you have ANY proof that he will be lagged behind by his current CPU and other parts... give up. He has absolutely no need for a new CPU/MB upgrade, whatsoever. In fact, my i3-550 that I just recently sold (it was for benchmarking) at 4.8GHz would show an FX-4*00 quad core were the door is in a lot of situations.
Between 80 and 140, and BF3 is the hardest thing I throw at it, but it's time for an upgrade now. There was nothing I was interested in upgrading for before BF4.
A I7 920 is still more than enough for any game unless you have a super powerful GPU system that will make it say uncle. What I mean is paired up with say, a GTX 680, it will be enough to let the 680 do its thing. I also grow tired of people arguing and missing the point here. The point is getting a system that works well in gaming. Not sitting here picking peanuts out of ****ing poo arguing over what CPU is the best. The bottom line, which I am sure we can all agree on is that in any gaming system the GPU is THE most critical part. What's been shown lately isn't that AMD CPUs are 'better' than Intel CPUs. It's merely that an AMD CPU paired up with a good GPU makes for a decent gaming rig, now that AMD CPUs are being utlised and supported properly. As such it simply makes more sense to buy one given they are far cheaper than their Intel counterpart and then buy a better GPU or an SSD with the money you have left over. IE - the CPU is not the most important thing in a gaming rig unless you need something to keep up with Quad SLI Titans. What does sadden me is the **** people will talk when it comes to bashing on a product. IE - the whole "But AMD are not smooth" and other comments of that ilk. What a steaming load of old excrement.
My oh my. Someone is defending his AMD isn't he? Facts and figures speak for themselves. Tell me. How's running on a CPU that's the same speed as a 2008 CPU working out for you?
You can't really, the Intel CPU is better, has better IPC and is overall the better CPU Exactly how i would describe what you just said but hey ho
No. It was a Sandy Bridge Xeon. And it wasn't 'smooth' and it didn't make Windows any more responsive than it is on my AMD system, given I use what's important (SSDs you know they're quite marvellous). As soon as I got my AMD rig set up I benched it. And what would you know? it absolutely destroyed the Xeon. I still had the Xeon and board at that point but decided yeah, the rumours that people like you spread about AMD are completely unfounded. AMD results. Run one All very high - 2XMSAA Min = 51 FPS AVG = 81.267 FPS MAX = 137 FPS Run two All very high - 4XMSAA Min = 39 FPS AVG = 51.244 FPS MAX = 72 FPS Which were pretty much what I expected, given that 1. Crysis 3 supports 8 cores. 2. The Intel was held back by the fact that it was completely locked down and thus, could not be overclocked. You have to pay for that with an Intel.
Congrats on benchmarking one game that actually uses more cores efficiently. Also, I've had SSDs in my system(s) since the 40GB Intel drives were around £120 for 40GB. I don't need lecturing on SSDs. LOL. It looks like SLI wasn't enabled in your Intel results. There's NO way the FX is that much better. LOL.
Righto there are two differences of opinion. And unfortunately none of you are going to agree. Can we just leave it at that plox? Or does someone have to go and report the posts? I have already told DutchDude to stop.
No there's no way that a 4.2ghz 8 core FX is that much better than a 3.1ghz derped locked down Intel that can't be overclocked because I didn't pay for it ! Even though the 8320 can best the 3770k... But please, keep your head in the sand. It reminds me of the days where the Intel Fanboys were laughing at AMD because they made a 64 bit CPU. And said how it wasn't smooth and would do nothing for the world of computing.
Oh sorry, I completely misread your post! I haven't read that article in full but I'm aware of frametimes as a benchmark of game performance. You're right, my frametimes probably are all over the place on the 295's. They were awesome when I got them and I still consider them to be a great setup, but once BF4 comes along they're going to struggle so it's time for them to go into a different machine and for something newer to replace them! Guys, please stop turning this valuable, interesting thread into a pissing contest and flaming session. Either agree to disagree and move on, or start a different thread to conduct your argument in.
Higher IPC blah blah blah blah waffle waffle drone smoother better Windows experience blah blah blah blah. As we've already covered in other threads and other debates one Intel core does not equal or better two AMD cores. So you hang onto that. Meanwhile I'll sit here with an ear to ear sized grin on my face that I'm able to do this with a rig that costs half of the one I beat.
