[gamegpu.ru] CPU scaling in 2015 release Games

[Jacky60]

These benchmarks just show how piss poor AMDs have become since their heyday in the early 2000s. They are OK for web surfing and watching video but I'd never buy or recommend one for gaming. I hope this changes but doubt it well with them so starved of resources.

 

[AtenRa]

Jup and it also shows why the 8core has such low performance...
1 out of 8 cores is 12,5% and in both games you can see one thread reaching close to that,which is the maximum,keeping the rest of the threads from doing more work.
Getting 60% out of a CPU in multithreaded games....

Actually the 8-core FX has excellent performance in games that use more than 2 threads and especially in games that can use 4 or more like RYSE.
On the other hand Dual Core high IPC Intel CPUs like the Core i3 stutter like mad in those games.

So the reality is that Dual Cores with or without HT are only fine when paired with slow GPUs now days, when the 8-core FX Vishera at 4GHz and above is fine for way faster GPUs.

 

[Mercennarius]

Exactly, and task manager does not tell you which case is true...
The only sure thing from your pics is that Dx12 uses 21% at a throttled 2,91Ghz while Dx11 uses 18% at 3,36Ghz.

If you want to then run ashes in a smaller window with process hacker in the background,double click the games exe in hackers window and choose the "threads" tab this will show you threads in real time and not the juggling that windows does.

You can see in the previous graphs posted that DX11 is primarily only using 1 thread with only offloading some tasks to other cores. This is pretty typical in DX11 games. DX12 on the other hand never utilizes one of my cores near 100% since the work load is spread through many threads. If it was "juggling" and only using 1 thread at a time it would look like the DX11 graph or you would see constant spikes and drop outs which you do not. When I limit the games available thread count performance drops indicating that simultaneous thread usage is done to achieve maximum performance.


8 Threads Test:

All Threads Test:

Since this game is 99% GPU limited on my setup there was a very small change in overall FPS. Fortunately DX12 breaks out the CPU performance and shows a 18% performance decrease when limiting the game to only 8 threads compared to allowing all threads available. This scales further when using even less threads further indicating the games benefit to simultaneously using multiple threads in DX12.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

These benchmarks just show how piss poor AMDs have become since their heyday in the early 2000s. They are OK for web surfing and watching video but I'd never buy or recommend one for gaming. I hope this changes but doubt it well with them so starved of resources.

Again, the only way that statement is actually true is by ignoring how badly dual core CPU's choke/stutter on multi-threaded games. I flat out just retired my G3258 because I just couldn't stand it any more. Buy an i3 or lower for gaming at your own peril. I personally have had enough of the lousy dual core gaming experience.... Even the Skylake Pentiums are lame in multithreaded games (my friend's G4400 is a stuttering mess next to my older Athlon X4 860K).

Just saying.... The antique FX's provide a smoother/better experience than any Celeron or Pentium in multithreaded games. Sure, the Celeron/Pentium's will pull ahead in single threaded stuff -- but game developers are moving away from that type of game.

 

[Headfoot]

what I dont understand is why nearly every single review site that does CPU benchmarking only has the 5960x to represent Haswell E, when it is clearly the outlier. Lowest clock rates, highest cache, highest core count. And nearly no one is running them because they're a grand a pop. A lot more people are running 5820k, and while substituting in the 6-core Ivy as a stand in is fairly good it would be really nice to actually see the most popular HW-E chip represented... especially since 6 core Ivy doesn't seem like it was a very popular chip either

 

[toyota]

lol the lower end cpus would get no better performance running 980 ti SLI over running a single 970 in most cases. I have actually seen people stupid enough to run 2 or 3 Titan X or 980 Ti gpus on an older quad or AMD cpu.

 

[moonbogg]

what I dont understand is why nearly every single review site that does CPU benchmarking only has the 5960x to represent Haswell E, when it is clearly the outlier. Lowest clock rates, highest cache, highest core count. And nearly no one is running them because they're a grand a pop. A lot more people are running 5820k, and while substituting in the 6-core Ivy as a stand in is fairly good it would be really nice to actually see the most popular HW-E chip represented... especially since 6 core Ivy doesn't seem like it was a very popular chip either

That's a Sandy Bridge-E they are using. Its damn nice to see how well Sandy-E is still doing with the newer games. OC that thing to 4.6 and BAM, its like a brand new CPU. LONG LIVE 3930K SUCKAS! (well, it will live until Skylake-E anyway)

 

[SPBHM]

what I dont understand is why nearly every single review site that does CPU benchmarking only has the 5960x to represent Haswell E, when it is clearly the outlier. Lowest clock rates, highest cache, highest core count. And nearly no one is running them because they're a grand a pop. A lot more people are running 5820k, and while substituting in the 6-core Ivy as a stand in is fairly good it would be really nice to actually see the most popular HW-E chip represented... especially since 6 core Ivy doesn't seem like it was a very popular chip either

same reason they use the rare 3970X and not the more popular 3930K, or the 4330 and not a 4130... it's the stuff most sites received from Intel or motherboard companies

 

[Vesku]

2 core + HT looks "OK", certainly it would be best to try to make it to the i5 4 core no HT level. Still, given current Skylake retail pricing I wouldn't fault anyone for going OC Skylake i3 and diverting the savings into GPU.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually the 8-core FX has excellent performance in games that use more than 2 threads and especially in games that can use 4 or more like RYSE.
On the other hand Dual Core high IPC Intel CPUs like the Core i3 stutter like mad in those games.

So the reality is that Dual Cores with or without HT are only fine when paired with slow GPUs now days, when the 8-core FX Vishera at 4GHz and above is fine for way faster GPUs.

Except if one is going to buy a high end gpu, you would be better off with an i5 or i7 and have good performance in all games, not just highly threaded games.

 

[Madpacket]

Again, the only way that statement is actually true is by ignoring how badly dual core CPU's choke/stutter on multi-threaded games. I flat out just retired my G3258 because I just couldn't stand it any more. Buy an i3 or lower for gaming at your own peril. I personally have had enough of the lousy dual core gaming experience.... Even the Skylake Pentiums are lame in multithreaded games (my friend's G4400 is a stuttering mess next to my older Athlon X4 860K).

Just saying.... The antique FX's provide a smoother/better experience than any Celeron or Pentium in multithreaded games. Sure, the Celeron/Pentium's will pull ahead in single threaded stuff -- but game developers are moving away from that type of game.

Considering how cheap you can get an 8 core FX + a decent FX99 motherboard and 8GB DDR3 RAM I agree. You have to look for deals but for around $200.00 USD you can walk away with a combo like this which offers much better value than any recent dual core Intel's hawking. The slow threads everyone laughed at is ironically starting to pay off due to console development and the trend will continue. Also AMD doesn't artificially neuter features or performance like Intel at the low end. I don't get why people still defend dual cores at the prices they demand.

 

[Yuriman]

Considering how cheap you can get an 8 core FX + a decent FX99 motherboard and 8GB DDR3 RAM I agree. You have to look for deals but for around $200.00 USD you can walk away with a combo like this which offers much better value than any recent dual core Intel's hawking. The slow threads everyone laughed at is ironically starting to pay off due to console development and the trend will continue. Also AMD doesn't artificially neuter features or performance like Intel at the low end. I don't get why people still defend dual cores at the prices they demand.

I'd still take an i3 6100 over an FX-8 any day of the week - especially if I can overclock it. Yes, Pentiums and Celerons are not aging well, but i3's do just fine. They may have a little more stuttering than the FX chips in some scenarios (though far more rarely than a dual w/o HT), but will more often have higher minimums and averages, as well as all of the other benefits Intel's chips hold.

 

[MrTeal]

I'd still take an i3 6100 over an FX-8 any day of the week - especially if I can overclock it. Yes, Pentiums and Celerons are not aging well, but i3's do just fine. They may have a little more stuttering than the FX chips in some scenarios (though far more rarely than a dual w/o HT), but will more often have higher minimums and averages, as well as all of the other benefits Intel's chips hold.

Overclocking an i3-6100 definitely sweetens it, but the that's still a bit of a raw art. Depends what else you use it for, I guess. Buying an i3-6100, Z170 and 16GB of DDR4 will set you back $290. A 8320E, 970 based board and 16GB of DDR3 will cost a bit under $245.

The big caveat is that you need to not care about power consumption much, but even in gaming at the same cost an 8 module PD coupled with a 390 is likely to widely outperform a 6100 based system with a 380X.

 

[Yuriman]

Overclocking an i3-6100 definitely sweetens it, but the that's still a bit of a raw art. Depends what else you use it for, I guess. Buying an i3-6100, Z170 and 16GB of DDR4 will set you back $290. A 8320E, 970 based board and 16GB of DDR3 will cost a bit under $245.

The big caveat is that you need to not care about power consumption much, but even in gaming at the same cost an 8 module PD coupled with a 390 is likely to widely outperform a 6100 based system with a 380X.

I'm sure you can make up that cost difference in the heatsink, power supply and case fans. An i3 6100 + Z170 system effectively costs very little different than an FX-8 + 970 system.

 

[TheELF]

Yes a lot of new games stutter like crazy,but that's due to bad choices from the programmers, that's why it's so random and even a lot of people with many core CPUs experience it quite frequently.
Just do a web search with any game + the term stutter and see monster rigs having troubles...

 

[toyota]

Yes a lot of new games stutter like crazy,but that's due to bad choices from the programmers, that's why it's so random and even a lot of people with many core CPUs experience it quite frequently.
Just do a web search with any game + the term stutter and see monster rigs having troubles...

Watch Dogs stutters and hitches like crazy on an i5 but is perfectly smooth on an i7. if you want a competent gaming pc at this point going forward you better go i7 and SSD along with that high end card.

 

[TheELF]

Watch Dogs was gimped on purpose,that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Something that is made to run on a 1,5Ghz bottom of the barrel CPU can run easily on any desktop dual core.
If it isn't running smooth on an i5 that is like 10x or more faster it's obvious where the problem lies.



Also...ubisoft.

 

[toyota]

Watch Dogs was gimped on purpose,that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Something that is made to run on a 1,5Ghz bottom of the barrel CPU can run easily on any desktop dual core.
If it isn't running smooth on an i5 that is like 10x or more faster it's obvious where the problem lies.



Also...ubisoft.

well that is the reality of modern pc gaming. you can complain about it and have a crappy experience by not running the proper hardware or you can do things right and enjoy your games much better. I had enough sense 2 years ago to see my 2500k was not going to cut it much longer as it was already getting pegged in Crysis 3 and nearly pegged in some other games so I bought an 4770k. and it did not cost much at all after selling the 2500k and previous mobo. if you are going to buy a higher end card then getting an i5 at this point is pretty silly.

 

[Carfax83]

Watch Dogs was gimped on purpose,that's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Something that is made to run on a 1,5Ghz bottom of the barrel CPU can run easily on any desktop dual core.
If it isn't running smooth on an i5 that is like 10x or more faster it's obvious where the problem lies.

That's a vast oversimplification. Watch Dogs on consoles isn't comparable to PC. PC has notably longer draw distance, higher LoD, more shadows and of higher quality, more and better reflections among other things.

Even considering the diminished settings, the consoles had the benefit of a lower level of optimization and yet they still ran the game at 30 FPS..

Watch Dogs also scales to 6 cores, so it's hardly gimped when it comes to CPU optimization. Maybe if Watch Dogs had been made in DX12, then a dual core wouldn't have much problems with it...

But since it's not, running that kind of game which is programmed with a high level abstraction API like DX11 is going to be messy if you're on a dual core..

 

[Aristotelian]

I'm surprised at how well a 2600k holds up, and mine at 4.4 should not represent a bottleneck to 980TIs in SLI.

I'm still going Broadwell-E 10 core as soon as it comes out, and at this rate that cpu should last me a good long while.

 

[Geforce man]

its posts such as this, that make me so extremely glad I actually plunked down on a high end chip for once. This 2700k has treated me quite well, going on year 5. Prior to this, I would only buy the mid - tier chips, and OC the hell out of them. Now I've had arguably a high end chip for going on 4 years, because I didn't cheap out. 4600Mhz from day one. (At below stock VID also!). Full power savings as well, so it doesn't even break the bank heat wise.

 

[AtenRa]

Ok two more games,

Dragon Dogma : Dark Arisen, dual cores including Core i3 really strangle.

http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/dragons-dogma-dark-arisen-test-gpu.html

Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak, using the Unity engine could probably need a bit more optimization.

http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-test-gpu.html

 

[TheELF]

Ok two more games,

Dragon Dogma : Dark Arisen, dual cores including Core i3 really strangle.

Yes, it really takes a very special kind of idiot to use two GTX980ti in SLI just for 1080p,especially in games with no driver optimization at all.
Just look at this crap, 30% driver (nvd3d = nvidia 3d)

when games like MGSV get away with 6% max (nvwgf = nvidia game force)

Just play this crap with a single GPU no matter what CPU you have,the GPU benches they have show that you don't need a strong GPU to get 60FPS @ 1080p.