Please intel fanboys...

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

GummiRaccoon

I do agree with you here.  There are cases where a $90-120 CPU is in order.  The fact is that some CPUs in that price range can run 98% of games just fine with a good GPU.  

I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.AlexKidd5000

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Back in the olden days we would discuss what processors to get at what price point, now everyone just suggests a $220 processor no matter what anyone's needs are.  this is ridiculous and either these people are all intel viral marketers or braindead.

hartsickdiscipl

I do agree with you here.  There are cases where a $90-120 CPU is in order.  The fact is that some CPUs in that price range can run 98% of games just fine with a good GPU.  

[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.Elann2008

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.JohnF111

I'm very fond of Far Cry 3. So, here.

The older AMD CPUs definitely fall behind. But, the Vishera restored my confidence in AMD. And if Vishera keeps a price advantage, I'm definitely sticking with AMD now unlike earlier last year.

jun_aka_pekto

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="JohnF111"] Apparently it's because Intel got anti-competitive lawsuits it makes them far more likely to buy off review websites, like a bank robber stealing a candy bar "because he's a thief".JohnF111

The software gimping Im talking about happened many years ago with Athlon 64/pentium 4 days.  Also Intel was fined and sued  billions across multiple countries for trying to run AMD into the ground with bribes etc, tin foil hats eh?

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] lol no, they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar more then once with shady practices. including purposely gimping software to run slower with AMD. 04dcarraher

The software gimping Im talking about happened many years ago with Athlon 64/pentium 4 days.  Also Intel was fined and sued  billions across multiple countries for trying to run AMD into the ground with bribes etc, tin foil hats eh?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] Yeah with billion dollar deals, not a million tiny little deals, I mean seriously, if corporate affairs can be discovered and brought to courts then I'm pretty sure thousands of small deals would have been found out by now. That software gimping thing was indeed bad but wasn't that to do more with the Cinebench developers rather than Intel? I mean Intel must have really upped their game since the anti-competitive stuff to have remained undiscovered for so long. Too many tin foil hats within the AMD fanboy community.JohnF111

The software gimping Im talking about happened many years ago with Athlon 64/pentium 4 days.  Also Intel was fined and sued  billions across multiple countries for trying to run AMD into the ground with bribes etc, tin foil hats eh?

[QUOTE="AlexKidd5000"]I tend not to trust reviews anymore. Intel can easily buy them off.JohnF111

AHAHHAHAAHHAAHAH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>AARARARARAGAGAGAGAGAGaAGAGGA
Ahahahahahaha...i am dyeing here...HHHHEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLPPPPP....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.
.........

Thank you sir. 

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

Barujin

Exactly!!!!

But you know that AMD fanboys wont post...because they already know the results...

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

rhazzy

Exactly!!!!

But you know that AMD fanboys wont post...because they already know the results...

Yeah, they'll probably blame it on a conspiracy in all of the benchmark programs and games favoring Intel. :P

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

Barujin

We all know Intel will come up ahead. The whole idea of having an AMD CPU is whether it can get the job done at a lower cost. Often times, the only way to tell the performance difference is to have a framerate counter running.

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

jun_aka_pekto

We all know Intel will come up ahead. The whole idea of having an AMD CPU is whether it can get the job done at a lower cost. Often times, the only way to tell the performance difference is to have a framerate counter running.

Well, I'm not talking about testing the best machines. Find two people with reasonably priced CPUs and see what performances they get. Do they actually get the job done at a lower price? :D

I'll post any benchmark I have, but my GPU probably doesn't compare well to most on this board.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

Barujin

We all know Intel will come up ahead. The whole idea of having an AMD CPU is whether it can get the job done at a lower cost. Often times, the only way to tell the performance difference is to have a framerate counter running.

Well, I'm not talking about testing the best machines. Find two people with reasonably priced CPUs and see what performances they get. Do they actually get the job done at a lower price? :D

I'm downloading the Guru3D Warhead Benchmark Tool and the RE5 Benchmark Utility. I also have Hard Reset's built-in benchmark tool. It might take a while testing my old PC.

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

I think the answer to this debate is for the fanboys to post benchmarks of their rigs. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes. So, let's see 'em. Whatcha got?

rhazzy

Exactly!!!!

But you know that AMD fanboys wont post...because they already know the results...

inb4 hundreds of useless synthetic benchmarks and games at stupid resolutions

This is from my current gaming PC assembled in 2009 with a mid-life GTX 560 Ti upgrade. 4th core is enabled 1080p.

Crysis Warhead DX10 Using Guru3D Tool, "Ambush"

Gamer: 0xAA= 48fps, 2xAA= 43.6fps

Enthusiast: 0xAA= 33.2fps, 2xAA= 28.4fps

If using DX9 add ~3fps for each score

-----

ARMA 2(no AA/AA=8)

Bench 1 (ground, low aerial view)= 41/33 fps

Bench 2 (high aerial view)= 17/18 fps

-----

Hard Reset (max detail)

FSAA: Min=22fps, Max= 114fps, Avg=53fps

FSAAx4: Min= 24fps, Max=80fps, Avg=48fps

-----

Resident Evil 5(max, AA=C16XQ)

Fixed: 71.3 fps

Variable: 72.9fps

-----

Bulletstorm is pegged at 60fps just about all the time.

-----

Far Cry 3

I keep it at DX11, HBAO, max out the FoV, MSAA= Off, Nvidia Control Panel 2xAA, Multisampling= Off

Details all max except Shadows which is at Very High, Post FX at Low

Framerates remain mostly in the low 30's (with occasional drops to mid-upper 20's) with no stuttering

With AA off at the Nvidia Control Panel, my framerates remain above 30fps all the time with occasional rises to the low 40's.  

I wish I had more games with benchmarks. But those are what I have.

Edit:

If I wasn't buying Crysis 3, I don't really even feel the need to upgrade yet. But, we all know Crysis 3 will be a mother to run.

If the comparison is AMD V Intel we need 2 people with the same GPU (or very similar) and different CPUs.

This is from my current gaming PC assembled in 2009 with a mid-life GTX 560 Ti upgrade. 4th core is enabled 1080p.

Crysis Warhead DX10 Using Guru3D Tool, "Ambush"

Gamer: 0xAA= 48fps, 2xAA= 43.6fps

Enthusiast: 0xAA= 33.2fps, 2xAA= 28.4fps

If using DX9 add ~3fps for each score

-----

ARMA 2(no AA/AA=8)

Bench 1 (ground, low aerial view)= 41/33 fps

Bench 2 (high aerial view)= 17/18 fps

-----

Hard Reset (max detail)

FSAA: Min=22fps, Max= 114fps, Avg=53fps

FSAAx4: Min= 24fps, Max=80fps, Avg=48fps

-----

Resident Evil 5(max, AA=C16XQ)

Fixed: 71.3 fps

Variable: 72.9fps

-----

Bulletstorm is pegged at 60fps just about all the time.

-----

Far Cry 3

I keep it at DX11, HBAO, max out the FoV, MSAA= Off, Nvidia Control Panel 2xAA, Multisampling= Off

Details all max except Shadows which is at Very High, Post FX at Low

Framerates remain mostly in the low 30's (with occasional drops to mid-upper 20's) with no stuttering

With AA off at the Nvidia Control Panel, my framerates remain above 30fps all the time with occasional rises to the low 40's.  

I wish I had more games with benchmarks. But those are what I have.

Edit:

If I wasn't buying Crysis 3, I don't really even feel the need to upgrade yet. But, we all know Crysis 3 will be a mother to run.

 

jun_aka_pekto

I ran the Crysis Warhead "Ambush" benchmark that you did.  Here are my results.  Average of 3 runs-

Settings- 1920x1080, Enthusiast, DX10, No AA

-Minimum FPS- 32.99

-Average FPS- 43.19

3570k@4.5ghz, Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC-950 1GB

Far Cry 3 at the same exact settings that you use-

-Average FPS- 52-55

-Minimum FPS- 41 

When I had my 3.7ghz Phenom II X4, I was averaging about 40fps and my minimums were in the high 20's.   

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

This is from my current gaming PC assembled in 2009 with a mid-life GTX 560 Ti upgrade. 4th core is enabled 1080p.

Crysis Warhead DX10 Using Guru3D Tool, "Ambush"

Gamer: 0xAA= 48fps, 2xAA= 43.6fps

Enthusiast: 0xAA= 33.2fps, 2xAA= 28.4fps

If using DX9 add ~3fps for each score

-----

ARMA 2(no AA/AA=8)

Bench 1 (ground, low aerial view)= 41/33 fps

Bench 2 (high aerial view)= 17/18 fps

-----

Hard Reset (max detail)

FSAA: Min=22fps, Max= 114fps, Avg=53fps

FSAAx4: Min= 24fps, Max=80fps, Avg=48fps

-----

Resident Evil 5(max, AA=C16XQ)

Fixed: 71.3 fps

Variable: 72.9fps

-----

Bulletstorm is pegged at 60fps just about all the time.

-----

Far Cry 3

I keep it at DX11, HBAO, max out the FoV, MSAA= Off, Nvidia Control Panel 2xAA, Multisampling= Off

Details all max except Shadows which is at Very High, Post FX at Low

Framerates remain mostly in the low 30's (with occasional drops to mid-upper 20's) with no stuttering

With AA off at the Nvidia Control Panel, my framerates remain above 30fps all the time with occasional rises to the low 40's.  

I wish I had more games with benchmarks. But those are what I have.

Edit:

If I wasn't buying Crysis 3, I don't really even feel the need to upgrade yet. But, we all know Crysis 3 will be a mother to run.

 

hartsickdiscipl

I ran the Crysis Warhead "Ambush" benchmark that you did.  Here are my results.  Average of 3 runs-

Settings- 1920x1080, Enthusiast, DX10, No AA

-Minimum FPS- 32.99

-Average FPS- 43.19

3570k@4.5ghz, Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC-950 1GB

Far Cry 3 at the same exact settings that you use-

-Average FPS- 52-55

-Minimum FPS- 41 

When I had my 3.7ghz Phenom II X4, I was averaging about 40fps and my minimums were in the high 20's.   

That seems to confirm Far Cry 3 does use the CPU a lot. The gains seem smaller on Warhead with yours having just a 10 fps advantage on both Min FPS (24 fps on mine) and Avg FPS. It seems to indicate a good GPU as a bigger factor. Interesting. 

Well, if I keep to my timetable, I'll assemble a new PC in the latter half of this year. I'll probably wait for AMD's Steamroller and see how it does. Otherwise, I'm going Intel. For the GPU, I alternate between Nvidia and AMD. It was Nvidia last time. The next one will be AMD; hopefully, the 8000 series.

For now though, my current PC is still doing well although Crysis 3 will no doubt overwhelm it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

This is from my current gaming PC assembled in 2009 with a mid-life GTX 560 Ti upgrade. 4th core is enabled 1080p.

Crysis Warhead DX10 Using Guru3D Tool, "Ambush"

Gamer: 0xAA= 48fps, 2xAA= 43.6fps

Enthusiast: 0xAA= 33.2fps, 2xAA= 28.4fps

If using DX9 add ~3fps for each score

-----

ARMA 2(no AA/AA=8)

Bench 1 (ground, low aerial view)= 41/33 fps

Bench 2 (high aerial view)= 17/18 fps

-----

Hard Reset (max detail)

FSAA: Min=22fps, Max= 114fps, Avg=53fps

FSAAx4: Min= 24fps, Max=80fps, Avg=48fps

-----

Resident Evil 5(max, AA=C16XQ)

Fixed: 71.3 fps

Variable: 72.9fps

-----

Bulletstorm is pegged at 60fps just about all the time.

-----

Far Cry 3

I keep it at DX11, HBAO, max out the FoV, MSAA= Off, Nvidia Control Panel 2xAA, Multisampling= Off

Details all max except Shadows which is at Very High, Post FX at Low

Framerates remain mostly in the low 30's (with occasional drops to mid-upper 20's) with no stuttering

With AA off at the Nvidia Control Panel, my framerates remain above 30fps all the time with occasional rises to the low 40's.  

I wish I had more games with benchmarks. But those are what I have.

Edit:

If I wasn't buying Crysis 3, I don't really even feel the need to upgrade yet. But, we all know Crysis 3 will be a mother to run.

 

jun_aka_pekto

I ran the Crysis Warhead "Ambush" benchmark that you did.  Here are my results.  Average of 3 runs-

Settings- 1920x1080, Enthusiast, DX10, No AA

-Minimum FPS- 32.99

-Average FPS- 43.19

3570k@4.5ghz, Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC-950 1GB

Far Cry 3 at the same exact settings that you use-

-Average FPS- 52-55

-Minimum FPS- 41 

When I had my 3.7ghz Phenom II X4, I was averaging about 40fps and my minimums were in the high 20's.   

That seems to confirm Far Cry 3 does use the CPU a lot. The gains seem smaller on Warhead with yours having just a 10 fps advantage on both Min FPS (24 fps on mine) and Avg FPS. It seems to indicate a good GPU as a bigger factor. Interesting. 

Well, if I keep to my timetable, I'll assemble a new PC in the latter half of this year. I'll probably wait for AMD's Steamroller and see how it does. Otherwise, I'm going Intel. For the GPU, I alternate between Nvidia and AMD. It was Nvidia last time. The next one will be AMD; hopefully, the 8000 series.

For now though, my current PC is still doing well although Crysis 3 will no doubt overwhelm it.

I was shocked by how much better Crysis Warhead ran after my CPU upgrade.  10fps is a big deal when you're going from 30 to 40fps.  Not such a big deal when going from 90 to 100.  Judging improvements from upgrades is more about percentage of increase, not the raw number of FPS gained.  Of course you're right about Far Cry 3.. it is more CPU-hungry.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCrOAng0kdQ I would have put this in the "Unbiased CPU Review" Thread, but it was locked. I know it's been beaten into the ground, but please Intel fanboys, stop putting Intel up on such a high pedestal, they are not a million times better than AMD. Just stop.AlexKidd5000

For single thread or limited multi-threads, wait for Steamroller with an Core iX matching quad instruction issue (retire rate) per cycle per core. For AMD, it's good thing that Haswell's IPC remained similar to Ivybridge.

dude, AMD cpus suck for gaming, its the facts. Games arent going to wait for AMD to catch up, either they copete or sell out to a competent company like Google who knows what they're doing.

blaznwiipspman1

AMD CPU has less performance for older PC game at lower resolutions, but next-gen console games would be targeting AMD's multi-thread bias.

You would need VS 2010 SP1 to generate code with FMA4 i.e. atleast Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x86/x64 Redistributable (after 3/03/2011).

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

We all know Intel will come up ahead. The whole idea of having an AMD CPU is whether it can get the job done at a lower cost. Often times, the only way to tell the performance difference is to have a framerate counter running.

Well, I'm not talking about testing the best machines. Find two people with reasonably priced CPUs and see what performances they get. Do they actually get the job done at a lower price? :D

I'm downloading the Guru3D Warhead Benchmark Tool and the RE5 Benchmark Utility. I also have Hard Reset's built-in benchmark tool. It might take a while testing my old PC.

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="Barujin"]

Well, I'm not talking about testing the best machines. Find two people with reasonably priced CPUs and see what performances they get. Do they actually get the job done at a lower price? :D

ronvalencia

I'm downloading the Guru3D Warhead Benchmark Tool and the RE5 Benchmark Utility. I also have Hard Reset's built-in benchmark tool. It might take a while testing my old PC.

True. But, the majority of games still fall within their limits.

looks pretty even

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I ran the Crysis Warhead "Ambush" benchmark that you did.  Here are my results.  Average of 3 runs-

Settings- 1920x1080, Enthusiast, DX10, No AA

-Minimum FPS- 32.99

-Average FPS- 43.19

3570k@4.5ghz, Gigabyte GTX 560 Ti SOC-950 1GB

 

Far Cry 3 at the same exact settings that you use-

-Average FPS- 52-55

-Minimum FPS- 41 

When I had my 3.7ghz Phenom II X4, I was averaging about 40fps and my minimums were in the high 20's.   

 

hartsickdiscipl

That seems to confirm Far Cry 3 does use the CPU a lot. The gains seem smaller on Warhead with yours having just a 10 fps advantage on both Min FPS (24 fps on mine) and Avg FPS. It seems to indicate a good GPU as a bigger factor. Interesting. 

Well, if I keep to my timetable, I'll assemble a new PC in the latter half of this year. I'll probably wait for AMD's Steamroller and see how it does. Otherwise, I'm going Intel. For the GPU, I alternate between Nvidia and AMD. It was Nvidia last time. The next one will be AMD; hopefully, the 8000 series.

For now though, my current PC is still doing well although Crysis 3 will no doubt overwhelm it.

I was shocked by how much better Crysis Warhead ran after my CPU upgrade.  10fps is a big deal when you're going from 30 to 40fps.  Not such a big deal when going from 90 to 100.  Judging improvements from upgrades is more about percentage of increase, not the raw number of FPS gained.  Of course you're right about Far Cry 3.. it is more CPU-hungry.  

25% increase going from a processor that is 3 years old to a brand new one isn't something I would call shocking.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

That seems to confirm Far Cry 3 does use the CPU a lot. The gains seem smaller on Warhead with yours having just a 10 fps advantage on both Min FPS (24 fps on mine) and Avg FPS. It seems to indicate a good GPU as a bigger factor. Interesting. 

Well, if I keep to my timetable, I'll assemble a new PC in the latter half of this year. I'll probably wait for AMD's Steamroller and see how it does. Otherwise, I'm going Intel. For the GPU, I alternate between Nvidia and AMD. It was Nvidia last time. The next one will be AMD; hopefully, the 8000 series.

For now though, my current PC is still doing well although Crysis 3 will no doubt overwhelm it.

NailedGR

I was shocked by how much better Crysis Warhead ran after my CPU upgrade.  10fps is a big deal when you're going from 30 to 40fps.  Not such a big deal when going from 90 to 100.  Judging improvements from upgrades is more about percentage of increase, not the raw number of FPS gained.  Of course you're right about Far Cry 3.. it is more CPU-hungry.  

25% increase going from a processor that is 3 years old to a brand new one isn't something I would call shocking.

It's a big deal when minimum FPS is significantly higher and there are far fewer dips.  It's also impressive since I didn't upgrade my GPU.  These are games that are typically considered very GPU-bound.  

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I was shocked by how much better Crysis Warhead ran after my CPU upgrade.  10fps is a big deal when you're going from 30 to 40fps.  Not such a big deal when going from 90 to 100.  Judging improvements from upgrades is more about percentage of increase, not the raw number of FPS gained.  Of course you're right about Far Cry 3.. it is more CPU-hungry.  

hartsickdiscipl

25% increase going from a processor that is 3 years old to a brand new one isn't something I would call shocking.

It's a big deal when minimum FPS is significantly higher and there are far fewer dips.  It's also impressive since I didn't upgrade my GPU.  These are games that are typically considered very GPU-bound.  

I'm just saying that a 25% increase after 3 years is not very impressive.  Especially when you consider it is going from a bad sub $70 (lol amd) processor to a good $220 (lol intelzthebest) processor.

that isn't even mentioning the fact that it is a new install of windows vs an old install

again, how is that shocking?