gamegpu2016 New Game CPU Benchmarks

[moonbogg]

LOL maybe that game doesn't suck haha. We all assumed it was some no name loser game, but its actually a legit game. Egg on this face right here. Its right here.

 

[frozentundra123456]

It cant be that inferior.

And the 6100 and 6300 shows no improvement over 4100 and 4300.

Its more a mix of cache speed, cache size and simple frequency that its actual core performance.

In addition, the 8350 has almost 15% base clock advantage over the 6300. Not sure what each one turbos at under load, but sheer clockspeed undoubtedly plays a part.

I do take game.gpu results with more skepticism than I used to, but in some games, FX is undoubtedly more competitive than it used to be. Unfortunately, it still uses more power and will drop off in games that demand fast single thread performance, so intel remains a more efficient and well rounded cpu.

 

[Ma_Deuce]

I don't believe I was thread crapping.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Cool story, bro.

Thanks, always wanted to be a master raconteur; looks like I'm well on my way

 

[f2bnp]

Cool story, bro. When a friend comes to me and asks me for a recommendation for the best CPU for her/his money, I will ask them if they the MEGA POPULAR game Deserts of Kharak. If they tell me this is their most favorite game of ever, I will be sure to help them put together a sweet Core i7 4790K build (since the FX 9590 is likely to be slower based on these benchmarks and about the same price).

Thank you for yet another valuable contribution to these boards, csbin. Without these "drive-by" posts I don't know how I would make hardware purchasing decisions! :thumbsup:

Shameful post. OP posted 3 graphs without a single comment, where did all this come from?

 

[NTMBK]

Thanks, always wanted to be a master raconteur; looks like I'm well on my way

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Thank you for yet another valuable contribution to these boards, csbin. Without these "drive-by" posts I don't know how I would make hardware purchasing decisions!

At least he posted some info about this new game. This is your contribution?

Back on topic

Seems to be an interesting game, i like RTS type of games so i might give it a try. FX lineup looks decent here but maybe a bit too late.

 

[Gikaseixas]

" Deserts of Kharak represents no great strides for RTS games, offers no big ideas, nor presents any real surprises for the genre. Nevertheless, it still remains, by and large, a confident and capable game. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-01-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review

Yet it's ranked higher than Rainbow Six Siege, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Just Cause 3, Star Wars Battlefront

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/homeworld-deserts-of-kharak

I'm looking forward to try it.

 

[showb1z]

ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.

 

[Gikaseixas]

ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.

You got it, it's all because the FX beat Intel line up in this title. So predictable :whiste:

 

[TheELF]

You got it, it's all because the FX beat Intel line up in this title. So predictable :whiste:

Not really, 4.7 is the max the FX can go in a sane way vs 3.5 Ghz which is the stock speed of intel.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Not really, 4.7 is the max the FX can go in a sane way vs 3.5 Ghz which is the stock speed of intel.

Yeah i agree, that wasn't my point thou, it's just the charts showing a certain FX on the lead that do not please a few here

 

[fourdegrees11]

ITT: Fanboys stumbling over their own feet to burn down Homeworld cause their favorite corporation got edged out by 2fps.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.

My thoughts exactly, pretty funny actually.

This just shows me that a budget build with an OC'd 8320E is still a worthwhile option, contrary to the reactions of people who care way more about this then any normal enthusiast should.

 

[LTC8K6]

Even in DOK, the 8350 is tied with an i3-4330, so it doesn't look that good.

 

[superstition]

" Deserts of Kharak represents no great strides for RTS games, offers no big ideas, nor presents any real surprises for the genre. Nevertheless, it still remains, by and large, a confident and capable game. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-02-01-homeworld-deserts-of-kharak-review

Being able to leverage so many cores seems to be quite a stride for the RTS genre which is, from what I've seen, known for having poor multithreading.

Even the DX12 Ashes does better on an i3 than on an 8 core FX.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Granted, the game.gpu utilization charts look that way, but otoh, a dual core i3 is very close to 8 core FX, and the 8350 is only 20% faster than 6300, most of which can be explained by the faster clocks.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Even in DOK, the 8350 is tied with an i3-4330, so it doesn't look that good.

But what is significantly faster than an i3 4330 in that game in those charts? Anything? The i7 5960X is barely faster than the i3 4330 or FX8350, too.

 

[TheELF]

But what is significantly faster than an i3 4330 in that game in those charts? Anything? The i7 5960X is barely faster than the i3 4330 or FX8350, too.

They would have to find a section of gameplay where there are a lot of enemies and stuff going on to do a real CPU test otherwise they are just measuring the graphics so it's only logical for every CPU (over a certain compute power) to have similar FPSs.

 

[jtisgeek]

What happened to this forums . SMH

Now back on Topic I play the game and love it.

The thing is Deserts of Kharak uses the Unity engine which doesn't thread for crap. So I think it shows according the benchmarks the game really prefers clock speed since it does most of the cpu intensive workload in a single thread.

Any overclocked Intel's would take back over the lead if that benchmark was ran on overclocked Intel cpu's.

Game also seems to need a driver update from Nvidia for 900 series cards because performance is lacking currently. Unity also doesn't support SLI so that was a waste to benchmark it with SLI.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Latest game posted xcom 2

AMD gets slaughtered in this one, even without showing any skylake results.

 

[Burpo]

 

[Erenhardt]

Latest game posted xcom 2

AMD gets slaughtered in this one, even without showing any skylake results.

It shows how poorly coded xcom 2 is.

can't even leverage 4 threads properly. Looks like 2016 is 2006 again.

 

[AtenRa]

It shows how poorly coded xcom 2 is.


can't even leverage 4 threads properly. Looks like 2016 is 2006 again.

Xcom2 uses the Unreal Engine 3, so no wonder why it needs single thread/Core performance.
But again this is a turned based game, anything above 30fps is more than fine.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, "it is what it is", and will quite likely be a very popular game. Complaining about the coding does not change the results.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Well, "it is what it is", and will quite likely be a very popular game. Complaining about the coding does not change the results.

Will you see a difference from 70 fps to 100 fps? It's playable and the experience will be similar. Why cheer for what is in reality an insignificant difference?

Intel slaughters AMD in poor threaded stuff
big news, everybody knows that