You can't keep focusing on performance without looking at the overall power efficiency. Performance per watt is the most important metric by far, and this is what NVidia focuses on..
Performance per watt is the most important metric by far
It is not even remotely close to the most important metric for a consumer.
Would be nice to have a sticky post with everyone's bf1/origin name in it somewhere. Nurturedhate here.
No it is not ...or atleast it shouldn't be. So long power usage is 'reasonable' and all the latest gen gpus meet that definition then it matters not one jot. No one is or should be basing their gpu purchase on whether a card uses 150w versus one that uses 160w.
Give me fps minimums or averages or frame-times or cost per dollar/pound ...they are what count.
It is not even remotely close to the most important metric for a consumer.
It's just an ambiguous statement that would be dropped as soon as it doesn't fit the favorite product. There's a point where power consumption is low enough to be acceptable, and it has more to do with noise and initial cost than with absolute power efficiency. Also, factory-OC would not be a thing if that was as important as claimed.well, unless you're one of those peasants that actually buys your hardware.
well, unless you're one of those peasants that actually buys your hardware.
Do you overclock your cpu/gpu? That wastes power. Have you replaced all of your light bulbs with LEDs? Do you turn off your cable/sat box? Etc. etc..
Bah. I fell the same way on an ib 4.0. Thats exactly why we need the dx12. This game is running on 6 jaguar cores at 1.7 yet 300% more powerfull cpu is not enough for 64p servers. Its a disgrace they havnt got the dx12 ready yet. So damn powerfull machines and its still lacking. Far Worse than bf4 on dx11 and light years from the mantle edition as i recall.Bah, my 4670k at 4.7 is bottlenecking my 1070 in 64p maps. Time for an upgrade .
This is all by design. IMHO. These are games that couldve easily been coded to run on far less hrdware requirements. But I think its a one back scratches the oher arrangements between software and hardware companies to constantly up the ante on what is required to play.Bah. I fell the same way on an ib 4.0. Thats exactly why we need the dx12. This game is running on 6 jaguar cores at 1.7 yet 300% more powerfull cpu is not enough for 64p servers. Its a disgrace they havnt got the dx12 ready yet. So damn powerfull machines and its still lacking. Far Worse than bf4 on dx11 and light years from the mantle edition as i recall.
Bah. I fell the same way on an ib 4.0. Thats exactly why we need the dx12. This game is running on 6 jaguar cores at 1.7 yet 300% more powerfull cpu is not enough for 64p servers. Its a disgrace they havnt got the dx12 ready yet. So damn powerfull machines and its still lacking. Far Worse than bf4 on dx11 and light years from the mantle edition as i recall.
Do we have any 64 man multiplayer performance reviews? I may have missed it but it seems like everything is just single player, which is useless data
Skylake is being hold back due to DDR4 latency in benchmarks an i7 6700k as slower or around 5775c performance because of the DRAM was 2133CL15If you believe the problem is the ram bandwidth, the Core i5 2500K was running with only DDR-3 1600MHz 9-9-9 RAM when Core i3 6300 had DDR-3 1866MHz at 9-9-9. And it really shows that its better to have a Quad Core with lower RAM than a High clocked Dual Core with faster Ram.
Core i3 SkyLake with DDR-3 1866MHz with 9-9-9 timings its faster than having DDR-4 2133MHz at 15-15-15.
If you need 3000MHz DDR-4 ram or faster with the Core i3, then you better spend that extra money for a core i5.
Hey folks, the final numbers are now up in my BF1 CPU & GPU Benchmarking Analysis. SLI haters will have something to crow about, but so will SLI lovers.