Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
  • Announcements

    • Dowin

      =ADK= Discord Link   04/24/2017

      Come join us in =ADK= Discord To download the Discord app go here: https://discordapp.com/   Discord is going to have a small learning curve over teamspeak so be prepared, but the fellow members as well as the Admins will gladly help you if you have any issues with installing or using the app. Once you have Discord installed all that's left to do is click the button below.   Welcome to the future of the =ADK= Community.   Click Here To Join! 
=ADK= warspite

Upgrading hardware for BF4 at 120Hz? Think about this...

Recommended Posts

All,

 

For the gearheads/enthusiasts among us, there is some very interesting discussion and experimenting by Chip Curry at Chip Reviews on CPU scaling with the Frostbite 2 engine in multiplayer.  Since I just made the jump to hexacore, I thought I would weigh in as well with what I've seen for myself (I will elaborate this post as I learn more).  Keep in mind that this post is more oriented toward those considering a serious hardware upgrade and want to game at 120Hz and avoid a CPU bottleneck.

 

We get post on here all the time about folks seeking to upgrade their rigs and most of them do their gaming in multiplayer.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of benchmarks we use use to make those critical hardware decisions are based on single player time demonstration game modes that don't correlate very well to how a certain piece of hardware will perform during multiplayer game on a populated server.  Nowhere have I seen the disparity between single player (campaign) mode and multiplayer more sharply than in Battlefield 3.  I have seen tons of posts on the EA, Battlefield 3, and Nvidia forums of frustrated people who've sprung for the latest hotness or doubled their GPU power with SLI only get no benefit from it whatsoever on BF3's large multiplayer maps.  It really sucks to see your FPS remain relatively unchanged while your card's GPU utilization hovers around 50%.

 

Speaking only for Battlefield 3, what I can see with Intel processors is that Frostbite 2 loves physical cores.  The more you can throw at them, the better.  One thing I missed at the very beginning of the article , is that Chip mentions that he's running Win8.  At the time, I didn't think that was a big deal until I noticed that under Win7, I saw no benefit to running the 3930K over the 3820 at the same clock speed - none.  What I did see under Win7 is a lower average processor load across all CPU cores with no increase in FPS.  Why this is so is a mystery to me, although I do have some guesses.  After much fiddling and trying to coax Win7 into providing some kind of performance boost from adding the physical cores, I gave up and did a clean install of Win8 to see if I could duplicate Chip's results.

 

Under Win8, I'm finally seeing the benefits of adding the 3930K's two additional cores.  My frame rates are up significantly (more data to follow) and my average GPU (GTX-780) utilization has increased from 75% to 95%.  I held off upgrading to Win8 for as long as I could, but in order to get the benefit of running a hexacore CPU with Frostbite 2, I had no other choice.

 

So, looking to upgrade your rig for BF4 (and Frostbite 3) multiplayer?  I would consider...

 

- Running a hexacore or better CPU.  If you want to game at 120Hz on BF3's large multiplayer maps, a hexacore CPU is a must.  I don't have any data on how well the AMD 8-core CPUs perform in BF3 multiplayer, but I would be very interested to know!  If the performance warrants it, an 8-core AMD processor may be the most economical.

- Running Windows 8.  YYMV, but personally I could get no benefit whatsoever from adding physical CPU cores while running Windows 7.  The difference in CPU scaling between the two Windows versions is that huge.

 

Just some preliminary observations from me as the clock tics down on BF4 and lots of folks are considering hardware upgrades.

 

war

Edited by =ADK= warspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall add some insight on the AMD 8-core. Currently I use it and have it overclocked to 4.6 Ghz (seems to be stable at that frequency). I see a good improvement in performance when it comes to games like Battlefield 3 where they actually can handle more that 4-cores (I am talking about physical cores). I do have to say that with a lower-end video card you will see smoother gameplay, but not higher frames per second. Now on Windows 8 it seems like anything below the GTX 670 you will most likely see your performance cut in half, and the AMD 8-core will not be able to help you with that problem. Now once 8.1 comes out and you upgrade to (it will be free for those who currently own Windows 8), you will see a great boost in performance for lower-end cards and even higher performance than that of someone using Windows 7.

 

I have just recently upgraded to an almost future-proof computer and I am using one GTX 780 in my computer. The AMD 8-core greatly compliments it and I see around 120 to 180 frames per second, my average is usually around 140 frames per second. Now that may seem unbelievable, but it is true now I am not saying for example on a 64 player server that I will get 120 to 180 frames per second. Instead I would get around 80-120 frames per second (around 180 frames per second when I am facing away from the main battles, but that doesn't matter), now I do have to admit that the Intel hexacore would be able to handle this a lot better giving you a constant performance (I am planning on upgrading to an Intel hexacore, myself not because of gaming; but just because I do other things) since you would be running multiple things at once on Windows 8 and up.

 

Why? Because Windows 8 and up would have apps running in the background if you don't want to always have to start them up again (you can close them). Now I would like to add that there isn't really a difference in being economical between the AMD 8-core and the Intel hexacore, you actually get more performance out of the hexacore than the 8-core. And the AMD 8-core becomes even more non-economically with 220w and up being sucked up by the processor.

 

So in my opinion for those who want to upgrade their rig for just gaming and not really for doing things like streaming and full on editing, then the AMD 8-core is the right thing for you (just get the FX-8350, if you think about it AMD has made their processor where when games don't support higher than quad cores; then the 8-core shuts down the 4 unused cores and enhances the remaining for cores, now I have yet to actually see this... I have tried everything and it seemed to never shutdown any cores.). Now if you are going to do a lot of streaming, okay sorry I should say high-quality streaming since anyone with any processor can stream, and edit in high quality (because again almost anyone can edit videos with almost any processor); then the hexacore is right for you. I also say that if you have enough money to throw around and you like to see a lot of performance then I suggest the hexacore.

 

Now I am not as educated as Warspite in the technology department, but I research a lot into what I buy and what I might buy. And I believe that Warspite does the same thing and maybe even more. Now I have to add this final comment and it is that when you go to upgrade your computer for Battlefield 4, don't just think about that game; but also think about other games, if you have a big enough budget then make it so that you can almost future-proof your system; since every game is going to utilize engines like Frostbite 3 differently. (And some might even have the worst optimization.)

 

 

~ James

 

PS: Don't let anyone put you down or criticize you on what you choose to buy, if you get an AMD 8-core or an Intel hexacore and couple it with a powerful video card like the 780/690/Titan then that is okay. And if you get a 144hz Asus monitor or equivalent and people criticize you about that, don't get angry at them just know that you made a decision of wanting to make yourself ready for the next-generation and prevent yourself from having to spend even more money for a newer monitor because your video card is even more powerful.

Edited by Johanos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

remember guys, an amd 8350 is not an octo-core. it does not have 8 full cores. its a 4 module 8 thread type cpu similar to intel hyperthreading.  bf3 does not use hyperthreading well and hurts in some situations so i cant see this architecture being fully utilized by frostbite 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cbrunnem how is it not an actual oct-core? It does have 8 physical cores, compare it with the architecture of the i7-4960x. It just isn't as powerful as Intel's hex-core.

Edited by Johanos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I was under the impression they were 8 physical cores.

 

@cbrunnem how is it not an actual oct-core? It does have 8 physical cores, compare it with the architecture of the i7-4960x. It just isn't as powerful as Intel's hex-core.

shared resources....

 

"Although each module appears as two cores in the operating system, they don't have as many resources as traditional AMD cores. So, while AMD claimed that its FX-8150 was the first true eight-core desktop processor, it wasn't in reality and its performance reflected that. Again, Piledriver doesn't change this architecture in any significant way, meaning the module design still exists in today's Vishera FX series processors."

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shared resources....

 

"Although each module appears as two cores in the operating system, they don't have as many resources as traditional AMD cores. So, while AMD claimed that its FX-8150 was the first true eight-core desktop processor, it wasn't in reality and its performance reflected that. Again, Piledriver doesn't change this architecture in any significant way, meaning the module design still exists in today's Vishera FX series processors."

 

http://www.techspot.com/review/586-amd-fx-8350-fx-6300/

I guess that makes sense, since the FX-8350 is on par with the 4770k yet it can't beat the 4960x...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all the CPU articles War referenced and a few others always got better performance with turning Intels turbo off. The hyperthreading is the CPU instructions tricking the OS into believing there are more cores to supply more data to the CPU than the OS would allow normally. Thus in theory a highly CPU data driven software/program will lose performance if the CPU can't process the data efficiently enough. Proven with Frostbite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that makes sense, since the FX-8350 is on par with the 4770k yet it can't beat the 4960x...

ummmm... what? since when and how? not sure where you got this idea.... maybe in the price/performance catagory but in cpu dependent takes the i7 wins... by a decent margin.

 

i will say that amds module/core setup is way more efficient then intels hyperthreading. but that still doesnt make up the ground that is between amd and intel on per clock performance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big factor in Intel's domination are their chipsets too. As a bigger picture, the mobo is as important as the CPU in the performance aspect. One of the main reason I don't run AMD is IMO the Intel chipsets on a great mobo is rock steady. Back in the P4 and FX days AMD had better performance but the chipsets by Nvidia and AMD where horrible for stability and consistency. IMO it is still that way, though I haven't run one personally since Intel released the Core2duo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummmm... what? since when and how? not sure where you got this idea.... maybe in the price/performance catagory but in cpu dependent takes the i7 wins... by a decent margin.

 

i will say that amds module/core setup is way more efficient then intels hyperthreading. but that still doesnt make up the ground that is between amd and intel on per clock performance.  

Well yeah per clock performance Intel is by far superior. But you also have to look at the big picture, we aren't just a talking about the cpus, we are also talking about games mainly Battlefield 4 (Battlefield 3 also)... Battlefield is becoming more and more optimized for AMD, yes games are optimized for certain products. You will see a majority of games being optimized for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. That being said, Intel is superior in multiple games like Far Cry 3; now Crysis 3, AMD just barely pulls ahead making it on par.

 

I am sorry that AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics, and yes that is a bonus for Intel power and a decent gpu. But in Battlefield 3, the FX-8350 and i7-4770k were on par. Now the only difference between the 4770k and the 3770k is the fact that the 4th gen has a better integrated gpu and has improved nanometers.

 

Certain games Intel is superior, certain games AMD is superior, and certain games both are so close that it doesn't matter how has higher or lower since it is a draw. The "idea" I got was from research, again from the first post was that I research everything before I even make a decision. I hate having fanboys or haters tell me which is superior or that what I got is wrong and that I am stupid, so I research the components before I make a choice. I am still using my old mobo and my old cpu, but I will be upgrading to the i7-4960x because I do other applications and things like that. AMD is great when it comes to gaming, but I can't see it hold up to Intel when it comes to other things.

 

But I will also have to say that yes AMD's module/core setup seems to be way more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading, but performance-wise Intel pulls ahead... Why? Because Intel has been in business longer than AMD, and AMD started out as a bunch of ex-Intel employees who wanted to always surpass Intel. (Doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, huh? Well once you research how they started and little things like that you will realize certain things.)

 

Now AMD seems to be built more directly toward gaming nowadays, so expect to see Intel being superior elsewhere; but gaming-wise AMD and Intel are in a stalemate, most likely who ever can make an actual 8-core or 10-core cpu will turn the stalemate back into competition.

 

~ James

 

PS: Intel is somewhat superior though, since it can hold more memory and it contains PCI Express x16 3.0 slots making the cards perform slightly faster (bandwidth-wise).

Edited by Johanos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah per clock performance Intel is by far superior. But you also have to look at the big picture, we aren't just a talking about the cpus, we are also talking about games mainly Battlefield 4 (Battlefield 3 also)... Battlefield is becoming more and more optimized for AMD, yes games are optimized for certain products. You will see a majority of games being optimized for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. That being said, Intel is superior in multiple games like Far Cry 3; now Crysis 3, AMD just barely pulls ahead making it on par.
 
I am sorry that AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics, and yes that is a bonus for Intel power and a decent gpu. But in Battlefield 3, the FX-8350 and i7-4770k were on par. Now the only difference between the 4770k and the 3770k is the fact that the 4th gen has a better integrated gpu and has improved nanometers.
 
Certain games Intel is superior, certain games AMD is superior, and certain games both are so close that it doesn't matter how has higher or lower since it is a draw. The "idea" I got was from research, again from the first post was that I research everything before I even make a decision. I hate having fanboys or haters tell me which is superior or that what I got is wrong and that I am stupid, so I research the components before I make a choice. I am still using my old mobo and my old cpu, but I will be upgrading to the i7-4960x because I do other applications and things like that. AMD is great when it comes to gaming, but I can't see it hold up to Intel when it comes to other things.
 
But I will also have to say that yes AMD's module/core setup seems to be way more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading, but performance-wise Intel pulls ahead... Why? Because Intel has been in business longer than AMD, and AMD started out as a bunch of ex-Intel employees who wanted to always surpass Intel. (Doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, huh? Well once you research how they started and little things like that you will realize certain things.)
 
Now AMD seems to be built more directly toward gaming nowadays, so expect to see Intel being superior elsewhere; but gaming-wise AMD and Intel are in a stalemate, most likely who ever can make an actual 8-core or 10-core cpu will turn the stalemate back into competition.
 
~ James
 
PS: Intel is somewhat superior though, since it can hold more memory and it contains PCI Express x16 3.0 slots making the cards perform slightly faster (bandwidth-wise).

Well yeah per clock performance Intel is by far superior. But you also have to look at the big picture, we aren't just a talking about the cpus, we are also talking about games mainly Battlefield 4 (Battlefield 3 also)... Battlefield is becoming more and more optimized for AMD, yes games are optimized for certain products. You will see a majority of games being optimized for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. That being said, Intel is superior in multiple games like Far Cry 3; now Crysis 3, AMD just barely pulls ahead making it on par.
 
I am sorry that AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics, and yes that is a bonus for Intel power and a decent gpu. But in Battlefield 3, the FX-8350 and i7-4770k were on par. Now the only difference between the 4770k and the 3770k is the fact that the 4th gen has a better integrated gpu and has improved nanometers.
 
Certain games Intel is superior, certain games AMD is superior, and certain games both are so close that it doesn't matter how has higher or lower since it is a draw. The "idea" I got was from research, again from the first post was that I research everything before I even make a decision. I hate having fanboys or haters tell me which is superior or that what I got is wrong and that I am stupid, so I research the components before I make a choice. I am still using my old mobo and my old cpu, but I will be upgrading to the i7-4960x because I do other applications and things like that. AMD is great when it comes to gaming, but I can't see it hold up to Intel when it comes to other things.
 
But I will also have to say that yes AMD's module/core setup seems to be way more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading, but performance-wise Intel pulls ahead... Why? Because Intel has been in business longer than AMD, and AMD started out as a bunch of ex-Intel employees who wanted to always surpass Intel. (Doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, huh? Well once you research how they started and little things like that you will realize certain things.)
 
Now AMD seems to be built more directly toward gaming nowadays, so expect to see Intel being superior elsewhere; but gaming-wise AMD and Intel are in a stalemate, most likely who ever can make an actual 8-core or 10-core cpu will turn the stalemate back into competition.
 
~ James
 
PS: Intel is somewhat superior though, since it can hold more memory and it contains PCI Express x16 3.0 slots making the cards perform slightly faster (bandwidth-wise).


That makes perfect sense. Nice response. More so proven by their GPU's as a more common stat that is easier to verify

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Johanos']

im not trying to start a flame war or start openly bashing but i just cant agree with your statement.

 

crysis 3 bench clearly shows an 8350 getting beat by a lower end i5 and almost beaten by an i3...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

a more recent bench

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1762/pg10/4th-gen-intel-core-i7-4770k-processor-review-feat-gigabyte-g1sniper-5-motherboard-crysis-3.html

 

intel will for the foreseeable future always have better overall performance. it will perform better in games and in productivity. they are just faster. no way around it. will AMD come out ahead in some things? sure but not a lot.

 

i challenge you this.  after you get your new intel hexacore test it against your current setup. im willing to bet you will get better fps in bf3.

 

btw both amd and intel make cpus with well over 8 cores. amd makes a 20 core cpu and intel makes a 12 core 24 thread cpu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='cbrunnem']

 

If you aren't overclocking and you have an AMD cpu, you are doing life wrong. The come unlocked from the factory for a reason, they are made to be ran like hell. In every benchmark you see you will always see stock speeds and usually with overdrive or turbo boost off. Which really isn't fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Johanos']

im not trying to start a flame war or start openly bashing but i just cant agree with your statement.

 

crysis 3 bench clearly shows an 8350 getting beat by a lower end i5 and almost beaten by an i3...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

a more recent bench

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews/1762/pg10/4th-gen-intel-core-i7-4770k-processor-review-feat-gigabyte-g1sniper-5-motherboard-crysis-3.html

 

intel will for the foreseeable future always have better overall performance. it will perform better in games and in productivity. they are just faster. no way around it. will AMD come out ahead in some things? sure but not a lot.

 

i challenge you this.  after you get your new intel hexacore test it against your current setup. im willing to bet you will get better fps in bf3.

 

btw both amd and intel make cpus with well over 8 cores. amd makes a 20 core cpu and intel makes a 12 core 24 thread cpu.

Oh, don't worry I am not either, and I am getting out of touch when it comes to the latest cpus... I have seen 12 and 16 cores, but I didn't know AMD had came out with a 20-core... It must be in a prototyping phase.

 

I see one problem with those two bench's, I mean I see that the FX-8350 is inferior when it comes to those... Yet the video cards also play an important - nay! A major role in the frames per second... My information came from Tech Syndicate : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVGwj1_Qno 

 

Now he isn't testing the FX-8350 vs the 4770k and I bet that the 4770k would most likely beat it by 10-15 more average frames per second... But other-wise I like this bench more, because it tells you what you will expect when you play a game at the highest settings with and without aa. (Now this was with 2 7970 ghz editions OC'd, I feel like this is a more trustworthy bench because the 7990 and 690 have been proven multiple times that they can become easily unstable - not saying that the recent one was unstable. If they had also done one with two 680s sli'd then there will also be a trustworthy bench too, now it has also been proven that AMD's crossfire is more stable than Nvidia's sli; but it is only by the fact of power supply power (sounds redundant doesn't it...), even though now both require the best power supply.

 

I do have to agree that Intel will always have an edge in the performance overall, and AMD will always make the new milestones (by the way which is more useful? I think almost everyone knows that answer even me... performance so Intel is well worth it.)

 

I will definitely accept that challenge, and I highly doubt that I won't see a boost in performance. Especially since I want to upgrade to the 4960x, I will definitely see a performance boost 20 or even 50 more frames per second (depending on my gpu power also).

 

So I guess in the end if you have money and want to upgrade mobo and cpu and have enough to spare a little more cash, go get the i7-4770k. If you are an AMD enthusiast then by all means get the FX-8350, no one is stopping you but yourself. Now if you have been saving up for a while and want to get the best upgrade then definitely get the i7-4960x, my dad is a computer enthusiast and raised me to be one; he worked with MSI for a long time and prefers the Intel processore, but when he went to build me and my little brother cheap computers that we could upgrade ourselves - he went to AMD. Now being new to AMD, he didn't know jack and picked a dual-core 2.5 ghz processor and a micro-atx mobo. The gpu he chose was an AMD Radeon HD 5450... >.>

 

I had the worst time of my life for multiple years, leading me to further research even more and more into computers (more than my father even had in his life). I learned that Nvidia was superior when it came to lower-end cards since performance was good. And that the higher-end AMDs and Nvidias were on par, but Nvidia seemed to always pull ahead. On the cpu end AMD was always cheaper, but at the cost of performance leaving Intel in the superior stage. To make a decent AMD system for work (which my father did on accident), a $850 AMD system is pretty good. Now if you wanted a decent Intel to upgrade from, then it would cost around $1000-$1500 (which definitely is not bad).

 

I thank you for your insight guys and I was just basing an opinion, and adding to Warspite's topic. Now me and cbrunnem were never flaming or bashing each other. We were just communicating in a computer geek fashion so don't misunderstand or get any wrong ideas with our posts.

 

~ James

 

Note: My statement will change over the years as I research even more and understand even more about the technology of computers. I have this thing where my intelligence depends on what I want to know, not trying to offend anyone... I love this community since I can talk smart with you guys and not have a person sit there not holding up to what they keep saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='cbrunnem']

 

If you aren't overclocking and you have an AMD cpu, you are doing life wrong. The come unlocked from the factory for a reason, they are made to be ran like hell. In every benchmark you see you will always see stock speeds and usually with overdrive or turbo boost off. Which really isn't fair.

It wouldn't make a logical benchmark if the AMD cpu is OC'd and the intel isn't. First do the native tests, then do a OC benchmark. Therefor making two reasonable tests that would influence people.

 

~ James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah per clock performance Intel is by far superior. But you also have to look at the big picture, we aren't just a talking about the cpus, we are also talking about games mainly Battlefield 4 (Battlefield 3 also)... Battlefield is becoming more and more optimized for AMD, yes games are optimized for certain products. You will see a majority of games being optimized for Intel, AMD, and Nvidia. That being said, Intel is superior in multiple games like Far Cry 3; now Crysis 3, AMD just barely pulls ahead making it on par.

 

I am sorry that AMD FX-8350 doesn't have integrated graphics, and yes that is a bonus for Intel power and a decent gpu. But in Battlefield 3, the FX-8350 and i7-4770k were on par. Now the only difference between the 4770k and the 3770k is the fact that the 4th gen has a better integrated gpu and has improved nanometers.

 

Certain games Intel is superior, certain games AMD is superior, and certain games both are so close that it doesn't matter how has higher or lower since it is a draw. The "idea" I got was from research, again from the first post was that I research everything before I even make a decision. I hate having fanboys or haters tell me which is superior or that what I got is wrong and that I am stupid, so I research the components before I make a choice. I am still using my old mobo and my old cpu, but I will be upgrading to the i7-4960x because I do other applications and things like that. AMD is great when it comes to gaming, but I can't see it hold up to Intel when it comes to other things.

 

But I will also have to say that yes AMD's module/core setup seems to be way more efficient than Intel's hyperthreading, but performance-wise Intel pulls ahead... Why? Because Intel has been in business longer than AMD, and AMD started out as a bunch of ex-Intel employees who wanted to always surpass Intel. (Doesn't seem like a reasonable conclusion, huh? Well once you research how they started and little things like that you will realize certain things.)

 

Now AMD seems to be built more directly toward gaming nowadays, so expect to see Intel being superior elsewhere; but gaming-wise AMD and Intel are in a stalemate, most likely who ever can make an actual 8-core or 10-core cpu will turn the stalemate back into competition.

 

~ James

 

PS: Intel is somewhat superior though, since it can hold more memory and it contains PCI Express x16 3.0 slots making the cards perform slightly faster (bandwidth-wise).

Very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='cbrunnem']

 

If you aren't overclocking and you have an AMD cpu, you are doing life wrong. The come unlocked from the factory for a reason, they are made to be ran like hell. In every benchmark you see you will always see stock speeds and usually with overdrive or turbo boost off. Which really isn't fair.

the best way to do it imo is to have all the cpus at the same clock speed then run them as they came from the factory. most people dont even bother overclocking even when they can so the test as they came from the factory is important. the test with all at the same clock speeds will just give a indication to how far ahead one or the other is.

It wouldn't make a logical benchmark if the AMD cpu is OC'd and the intel isn't. First do the native tests, then do a OC benchmark. Therefor making two reasonable tests that would influence people.

 

~ James

yes ^^^

 

i guess what i am trying to say as a hole is that intel only looses in one area, cost. everywhere else intel is superior.  if you dont want the last 10% of performance out of your cpu then by all means get an AMD processor. in most games currently you dont even need an intel cpu but in some like bf3 multiplayer in intel cpu helps a lot.  i choose an intel cpu because if im going to spend 200 bucks on a cpu i might as well spend 300 and get the best that is reasonably priced. not everyone has the same opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall add some insight on the AMD 8-core. Currently I use it and have it overclocked to 4.6 Ghz (seems to be stable at that frequency). I see a good improvement in performance when it comes to games like Battlefield 3 where they actually can handle more that 4-cores (I am talking about physical cores). I do have to say that with a lower-end video card you will see smoother gameplay, but not higher frames per second. Now on Windows 8 it seems like anything below the GTX 670 you will most likely see your performance cut in half, and the AMD 8-core will not be able to help you with that problem. Now once 8.1 comes out and you upgrade to (it will be free for those who currently own Windows 8), you will see a great boost in performance for lower-end cards and even higher performance than that of someone using Windows 7.

 

I have just recently upgraded to an almost future-proof computer and I am using one GTX 780 in my computer. The AMD 8-core greatly compliments it and I see around 120 to 180 frames per second, my average is usually around 140 frames per second. Now that may seem unbelievable, but it is true now I am not saying for example on a 64 player server that I will get 120 to 180 frames per second. Instead I would get around 80-120 frames per second (around 180 frames per second when I am facing away from the main battles, but that doesn't matter), now I do have to admit that the Intel hexacore would be able to handle this a lot better giving you a constant performance (I am planning on upgrading to an Intel hexacore, myself not because of gaming; but just because I do other things) since you would be running multiple things at once on Windows 8 and up.

 

Why? Because Windows 8 and up would have apps running in the background if you don't want to always have to start them up again (you can close them). Now I would like to add that there isn't really a difference in being economical between the AMD 8-core and the Intel hexacore, you actually get more performance out of the hexacore than the 8-core. And the AMD 8-core becomes even more non-economically with 220w and up being sucked up by the processor.

 

So in my opinion for those who want to upgrade their rig for just gaming and not really for doing things like streaming and full on editing, then the AMD 8-core is the right thing for you (just get the FX-8350, if you think about it AMD has made their processor where when games don't support higher than quad cores; then the 8-core shuts down the 4 unused cores and enhances the remaining for cores, now I have yet to actually see this... I have tried everything and it seemed to never shutdown any cores.). Now if you are going to do a lot of streaming, okay sorry I should say high-quality streaming since anyone with any processor can stream, and edit in high quality (because again almost anyone can edit videos with almost any processor); then the hexacore is right for you. I also say that if you have enough money to throw around and you like to see a lot of performance then I suggest the hexacore.

 

Now I am not as educated as Warspite in the technology department, but I research a lot into what I buy and what I might buy. And I believe that Warspite does the same thing and maybe even more. Now I have to add this final comment and it is that when you go to upgrade your computer for Battlefield 4, don't just think about that game; but also think about other games, if you have a big enough budget then make it so that you can almost future-proof your system; since every game is going to utilize engines like Frostbite 3 differently. (And some might even have the worst optimization.)

 

 

~ James

 

PS: Don't let anyone put you down or criticize you on what you choose to buy, if you get an AMD 8-core or an Intel hexacore and couple it with a powerful video card like the 780/690/Titan then that is okay. And if you get a 144hz Asus monitor or equivalent and people criticize you about that, don't get angry at them just know that you made a decision of wanting to make yourself ready for the next-generation and prevent yourself from having to spend even more money for a newer monitor because your video card is even more powerful.

Dayum!

 

Those are some great words and adding your perspective on AMD components truly enriches the content of this forum.  I invite you, at any time, to give us your perspective on hardware and driver issues from the Red camp and how the figure into the gaming experience.

 

As I have so often said, speed is but one dimension of system performance.  Having and configuring a system that offers low latency and consistent playable frame rates (anything above your monitor's refresh rate is wasted) is the main goal of this forum and your comments fit perfectly.  Thank you very much for your perspective and comments!

 

war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best way to do it imo is to have all the cpus at the same clock speed then run them as they came from the factory. most people dont even bother overclocking even when they can so the test as they came from the factory is important. the test with all at the same clock speeds will just give a indication to how far ahead one or the other is.

yes ^^^

 

i guess what i am trying to say as a hole is that intel only looses in one area, cost. everywhere else intel is superior.  if you dont want the last 10% of performance out of your cpu then by all means get an AMD processor. in most games currently you dont even need an intel cpu but in some like bf3 multiplayer in intel cpu helps a lot.  i choose an intel cpu because if im going to spend 200 bucks on a cpu i might as well spend 300 and get the best that is reasonably priced. not everyone has the same opinion.

I think that we are getting very near the state of the art that more speed doesn't necessarily mean a better system or a better value.  There is also a "common sense" dimension that has to be considered at some point.  What I mean is that for the most system-intensive games, you reach a point where more performance (more expensive hardware) does not equate to a better gaming experience unless you are mostly satisfied by seeing a high FPS number on your screen.

 

The best price/performance ratio is achieved when the genre of games you play on your system can be rendered with a minimum (not average or max) FPS that is close to your monitor's refresh rate and the difference between you minimum and maximum FPS is a low as possible.  Of course, you want to be a little on the high side of this in order to meet a component refresh (upgrade) cycle that fits your budget.  For many of us, that is about 1 year for a GPU and 2-3 years for a mobo/CPU.

 

Using this sort of consideration, a person might be able to build a more balanced system that includes SSDs, a nice sound card (yes, they're making a comeback), good headset, mechanical keyboard, etc. and not tying up all of one's hardware budget on in a CPU, mobo, and GPU.

 

war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading up on the sound cards, and they seem to be returning and in full... I am using speakers, so I guess maybe a higher quality sound card over onboard sound would be an improvement. Now I just have to choose which brand, it seems like Asus might win that one.

 

I have been reading up and watching videos on workstation/uber gaming systems and I wanted to ask if anyone in this community has a computer to that degree. I would really like to know if dual Xenons could actually handle gaming. Or if someone wants to go crazy would a dual 2011 Asus mobo suffice (however I am not too sure if Asus is the right mobo brand, I have only used Gigabyte and MSI).

 

But that might be a whole different topic to discuss, haha.

 

Back to the processors and Battlefield 4, it seems like even though processors give you a huge boost in frames per second - they can't back it up with the smoothness in gameplay. I think also we have to determine the compliments between gpus also, it seems like AMD does a decent job complimenting both AMD gpus and Nvidia gpus. Yet Intel does an even better job at Nvidia gpus, and seeing how physics play an entirely important role in next-gen games AMD cpus will have a slight problem. Especially since Frostbite 3 doesn't use Havok nor does it use PhysX, so that means Intel will have a better time since it is powerful enough to handle that much pressure. If Frostbite had used PhysX as its physics then the battle between AMD and Intel would seem somewhat null and void, since it would actually be the battle between Nvidia and AMD showing Nvidia rising.

 

I think it does base off of cpus a lot, but since this is mainly Battlefield 4 we are talking about. It should also depend on your system set up and this is how it would go (keep in mind I am talking mainly about Battlefield 4):

 

CPU will handle the physics - AMD vs Intel (Intel would win this part unless it is an i3 against the FX-8350... Which I highly doubt someone would do that.)

GPU will handle textures and whatnot that depends on the video card - AMD vs Nvidia (Both would be in a strong battle since there is not special technology that                                                                                                                  would hinder either card useless or less powerful.)

Hard Drive will handle also the textures and characters and every file that has to be loaded - SSDs vs HDDs vs Hybrid SSDs (Most likely SSDs and Hybrid SSDs                                                                                                                                                       would win since they would be able to process through all the                                                                                                                                                               textures and files quicker, but a higher rpm HDD would be able to                                                                                                                                                         compete - just look at the price difference though.)

Sound card would most likely improve the performance of the game's high quality sound - Since it would take the load off of your motherboard, giving it more                                                                                                                                                       power to handle the CPU and GPU(s).

Monitor would handle the onscreen display (obviously) - A higher quality monitor could and would most likely improve your gaming experience, and might help                                                                                                you in improving your skills since the response time will be faster and you would have a higher and                                                                                                    more fluid refresh rate.

RAM would determine something (haven't researched that much into RAM only knowing that more will let me be able to have other things open and process certain things quicker) - Would most likely prevent any slowness in your gameplay (I guess, might also improve how much memory your computer takes since the                                          game might go over your VRAM if you don't have 3 Gb. Someone can help me with that.)

 

Every other component would be a simple matter... Power supply should be able to handle your SLI/Crossfire, CPU (especially if it is OC'd), and every other component that sucks power (especially your cooling systems - fans, liquid coolers, whatnot). Headset should be comfortable for you and should give you the quality of sound that you prefer. Mouse and keyboard should fit your comfortability and reflexes, it should also give you the features that you would want when you game. Your case should be able to hold all of the components and should enable good or great airflow, compliment your liquid cooling if you are going to go that direction, and be upgradable.

 

Now I am not going to go into detail about your gaming area or anything like that, it all depends on your personality. You can have your Spot Illustrated girls (doesn't have to be Sports Illustrated, I just chose random at the top of my head... Darn Hulu ads), your hot British guys (I say this because my sisters seem to like British guys over anybody else), or your favorite games/movies/books (mine would be ROBOTECH, Dungeons and Dragons, and/or Ranger's Apprentice). It all depends on you... Me? I like to leave my area clean and professional (which isn't going too well) just in case someone looks toward me for some advice in the technical world. It wouldn't look like I have my computer in the basement of my parents' house.. Which I do, but that is a different matter entirely (since their basement is their master bedroom... O.o).

 

~ James

PS: Feel free to add in or change anything. This is my deductive reasoning and I may be wrong in certain aspects. Again, I am not a tech-wiz just a 17 10/12 year old aspergian who suffers from depression that seems to get addicted to one thing and right now it is technology (mainly vehicles and computers/tablets/phones/etc)...

 

Note: Does this seems too clunky? I have been trying to figure out how to make my responses less cluttered and more organized/professional looking (professional is a long shot though, haha.).

Edited by Johanos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Johanos'] 

 

Just do your thing my friend.  I ramble all the time and as long as I've got something interesting to say, folks don't mind.

 

war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use