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.
Cool story, bro.
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:
Thanks, always wanted to be a master raconteur; looks like I'm well on my way
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!
" 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
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:
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.
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.
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." 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
Even in DOK, the 8350 is tied with an i3-4330, so it doesn't look that good.
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.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.
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.
Well, "it is what it is", and will quite likely be a very popular game. Complaining about the coding does not change the results.