gamegpuTom Clancy’s The Division Beta Benchmarks

[railven]

Do you actually believe that anyone would pay more than what the FX8350 is being sold TODAY for an SB/Ivy Core i5 ??

I don't get your question. If people were willing to pay more for the FX8350 they'd probably just go for the i5. Thus AMD is charging what they most likely determined is the best price.

People keep forgetting this is a 2012 CPU that is very close with Intels 2013-2015 Core i5s in many of the latest games.

People are forgetting that these processors are clocked much higher, consuming much more power, and are still losing. IE, you get what you pay for. I'm not questioning the value of the processors. Of course if you can only afford so much, these are going to be your top choice. But something tells me that isn't AMD's goals. "We are the budget kings."

 

[TheELF]

I would really like to see the Frametimes of the Core i3 with all four threads at 90-100%.

If you have a 980ti sli setup and get 94FPS avg you could limit your FPS if you're a stickler for frametimes.
Anybody with a single or lower GPU setup will not have to worry about hitting 90-100% at all.

 

[RussianSensation]

gamegpu.ru :sneaky: they test a 750 ti at ultra 4K 10FPS but can't be bothered to run tests with settings bellow 1080P ultra :thumbsdown:

Did you read the article?

I would say at this point in 2016, anyone who is interested in playing Day 1/Week 1 $60 USD launch games with 2012 and beyond GPUs and isn't using a 1920x1080 monitor shouldn't be blaming a review site but be saving up for a monitor upgrade. It was possible to buy a good 1600x1200 CRT for $200-270 in 2003.

Zen better be more competitive than that. If it takes Zen almost 35% more clocks to still lose, just pack it up AMD. Don't even bother.

It's the complete opposite. If Zen even comes close to Skylake/Broadwell-E in performance, it would be a complete failure on Intel's part. AMD's current market cap is 1.65B vs. 141B for Intel, not to mention the disparity in human capital, R&D and manufacturing node advantages Intel has had since 2006. Under no circumstances should AMD even come close to Skylake/Broadwell-E in performance. The realistic expectation is Zen should under-perform Intel's high-end CPUs, but what we don't know is by how much slower it will be and what prices AMD will set. If Zen / Zen + OC actually manages to beat Skylake/BW-E stock/ OC $350-1000 CPUs, it would actually make Intel look utterly incompetent and wasteful with its massive resource base. On paper, Intel should still easily win since 35-40% increase in IPC is not enough to match Skylake/BW-E's single threaded performance.

 

[Anubis]

Did you read the article?

I would say at this point in 2016, anyone who is interested in playing Day 1/Week 1 $60 USD launch games with 2012 and beyond GPUs and isn't using a 1920x1080 monitor shouldn't be blaming a review site but be saving up for a monitor upgrade. It was possible to buy a good 1600x1200 CRT for $200-270 in 2003.

I think he means 1080 high or medium not a rez below 1080

 

[RussianSensation]

I think he means 1080 high or medium not a rez below 1080

They did test High vs. Ultra:

970 HQ = 60 fps
280X HQ = 60 fps

970 UQ = 44 fps
280X UQ = 45 fps

It is in the OP's link in the first post.

 

[SPBHM]

since they test cards like a 750 Ti they should also test the game with lower settings like some other sites do to get some relevant results, but they go as far as testing the 750 ti at 4K ultra but don't go much bellow 1080P ultra (oh they have a 1080P high at 25FPS), but I don't have the game, maybe it's like Crysis 3, "high" is the minimum!? or no one plays games with lowered settings as slower cards anymore.

and 10FPS 4K tests are fine,

 

[railven]

It's the complete opposite. If Zen even comes close to Skylake/Broadwell-E in performance, it would be a complete failure on Intel's part. AMD's current market cap is 1.65B vs. 141B for Intel, not to mention the disparity in human capital, R&D and manufacturing node advantages Intel has had since 2006. Under no circumstances should AMD even come close to Skylake/Broadwell-E in performance. The realistic expectation is Zen should under-perform Intel's high-end CPUs, but what we don't know is by how much slower it will be and what prices AMD will set. If Zen / Zen + OC actually manages to beat Skylake/BW-E stock/ OC $350-1000 CPUs, it would actually make Intel look utterly incompetent and wasteful with its massive resource base. On paper, Intel should still easily win since 35-40% increase in IPC is not enough to match Skylake/BW-E's single threaded performance.

I dunno. Intel phoning it in and raking in BILLIONs doesn't seem like a failure to me. Now, if Zen does bring the mustard and Intel can't pass the ketchup, then you might have yourself a hot dog. But if Intel just goes for the pickles and puts out a burger, well AMD will go back to irrelevance.

Man I'm hungry.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

the beta could be from any number of months ago. I think what might happen is nvidia gives them code to put in the game late. We'll see but I am expecting some late addition of nvidia code.

They have already integrated GameWorks specific features and just before the beta they hosted an alpha just under two months ago on the X1 ...

There's not much room for flexibility of how old the builds are ...

By this time I imagine the current build is no more than two weeks old and it would serve no point for Ubisoft Massive to test the older builds when it doesn't keep track of the regressions or current bugs in the more recent builds ...

They are probably searching for a release candidate already as we speak ...

 

[RussianSensation]

I dunno. Intel phoning it in and raking in BILLIONs doesn't seem like a failure to me. Now, if Zen does bring the mustard and Intel can't pass the ketchup, then you might have yourself a hot dog. But if Intel just goes for the pickles and puts out a burger, well AMD will go back to irrelevance.

Man I'm hungry.

I don't want a hot dog from Intel. I want a sausage -- higher quality tasting stuff. Polish, Italian or German. Instead, they are selling a hot dog for $410+ or a stale sausage. Either way, 35-40% increase in IPC is a step in the right direction but under no circumstances do I actually believe AMD's 4-8 core CPUs will match i7 6700K/6-8 core BW-E. As I said, if they actually do, it's far beyond any reasonable expectations.

AMD's hope is more games use DX12 but by the looks of 2016, it's shaping up to be another year with DX12 drought.

My side rant on GPU testing:
At this point with a 2-3 year track record of AAA games seeing massive performance boosts, performance degradation (after patches), etc., review sites need to change their testing methodology. I think a game needs to be tested 2-3 times over the course of 12 months. Day 1/Week 1 launch performance is more or less BETA at this point.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for sites to increase the # of games they test, pushing it into the 20-25 games category. Sure it takes more time to do the testing but besides M.2 PCIe SSDs, GPUs and monitors (related to GPUs), there is nothing exciting left in the DIY PC space. Might as well double-down on more detailed/extensive GPU testing.

 

[railven]

I don't want a hot dog from Intel. I want a sausage -- higher quality tasting stuff. Polish, Italian or German. Instead, they are selling a hot dog for $410+ or a stale sausage. Either way, 35-40% increase in IPC is a step in the right direction but under no circumstances do I actually believe AMD's 4-8 core CPUs will match i7 6700K/6-8 core BW-E. As I said, if they actually do, it's far beyond any reasonable expectations.

AMD's hope is more games use DX12 but by the looks of 2016, it's shaping up to be another year with DX12 drought.

Everyone wants a big ol sausage from Intel.

I'm hoping with a more robust AMD (ie Zen delivers) Intel will get off it's fat ass. I'm not going to argue chicken/eggs, but Pentium 4 sucked and what came after was amazing. And if AMD had anything to do with it, I'd want history to repeat itself.

My side rant on GPU testing:
At this point with a 2-3 year track record of AAA games seeing massive performance boosts, performance degradation (after patches), etc., review sites need to change their testing methodology. I think a game needs to be tested 2-3 times over the course of 12 months. Day 1/Week 1 launch performance is more or less BETA at this point.

It wouldn't be a bad idea for sites to increase the # of games they test, pushing it into the 20-25 games category. Sure it takes more time to do the testing but besides M.2 PCIe SSDs, GPUs and monitors (related to GPUs), there is nothing exciting left in the DIY PC space. Might as well double-down on more detailed/extensive GPU testing.

I think you're asking too much for a hardware review site. What needs to happen is PC gaming become more affiliated with gaming sites. While I hate the site, Polygon has shown they are willing to re-review a game after some patches/updates. Hardware sites aren't going to really care, I mean, the hardware didn't change.

Unless one is hoping to catch one of the vendors with some old school cheats, I doubt they are interested in putting the man hours into it. And what's the point? Unless the site has a pristine record or goes through all the trouble of avoiding popular titles (which are going to get the best/most optimizations) people are still going to cry foul, how a site is bias, and basically put all those man hours to waste. EDIT: Just using these forums as an example. If the review isn't gushing to one's preference it's slammed as being bias/shilling/pointless.

 

[Madpacket]

Do you actually believe that anyone would pay more than what the FX8350 is being sold TODAY for an SB/Ivy Core i5 ??
People keep forgetting this is a 2012 CPU that is very close with Intels 2013-2015 Core i5s in many of the latest games.



Definitely, if ZEN needs 2-3 years for software to catch up then say bye bye. ZEN needs to continue from where the Current CPUs are in order to succeed.

I own several decent Intel processesor (5930K, 4790K, Xeon 1231v3) but I ended up recently buying both an 8320E and 8350 for a few reasons. #1. Price. Under $200.00 for an 8 Core CPU, FX99 motherboard and 8GB RAM at Microcenter. The motherboard is full featured as well, 1150 audio with separate islands, M.2 PCIe, full x16 PCIe for Xfire/SLI etc. The 8350 was a little more but still under 200 US with a good 100 US FX97 motherboard with similar features. The CPU's even came with dirt rally codes which I sold off and used rhe money to pay for aftermarket cooler's allowing the CPU's to hit 4.4 & 4.5Ghz.

With Intel you get none of this, even at MC the combos are terrible in the 100-200 range, they only make sense when you start spending a lot more money.

For the value you can't beat the FX series. They idle at very low watts and only consume power when necessary and surprisingly use a lot less at idle than my X99/5930K at default speeds.

A lot of people on these forums (and other forums) only see Red, Blue or Green. Perhaps it's due to the general expense of these components where most people have to make a decision and buy what they thinks best but feel the need to defend this purchase for some reason.

I've come to the conclusion after being in a lucky position of being fortunately able to test out almost all of the recent PC consumer platforms and technology that you need to keep an open mind. Every technology has pros and cons and these sometimes change throughout the lifespan of a product. AMD's engineers have mostly shown they're a very forward thinking company (sometimes to their detriment) so we see weird things like 7970's and 290's last much longer than first envisioned or in this case FX 8 Core CPU's finally starting to show their value.

I still think there aren't really bad products anymore, at least in the PC space, just bad prices.

 

[MrTeal]

Do you actually believe that anyone would pay more than what the FX8350 is being sold TODAY for an SB/Ivy Core i5 ??
People keep forgetting this is a 2012 CPU that is very close with Intels 2013-2015 Core i5s in many of the latest games.



Definitely, if ZEN needs 2-3 years for software to catch up then say bye bye. ZEN needs to continue from where the Current CPUs are in order to succeed.

Considering that used 2500k's still sell close to the $125 that a 8320E goes for, I would say a good number would

 

[frozentundra123456]

On that note: Good showing for AMD's FX "sans Skylake"

FX is looking better in recent games, granted. Hard to say much about this game though, because it appears to be GPU limited even with 2 x 980Ti. Even then, haswell i3 is as fast in ave FPS as 8350, although 8350 has much better minimums.

Also game.gpu results seem quite different than other sites in some recent games. Will be interested to see cpu results from some other sites.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Do you actually believe that anyone would pay more than what the FX8350 is being sold TODAY for an SB/Ivy Core i5 ??
People keep forgetting this is a 2012 CPU that is very close with Intels 2013-2015 Core i5s in many of the latest games.



Definitely, if ZEN needs 2-3 years for software to catch up then say bye bye. ZEN needs to continue from where the Current CPUs are in order to succeed.

Doesn't matter how old FX is. It is still their top of the line processor. Cant believe people are still using this excuse for FX performance and power usage. If it is too old and not competitive, AMD should have brought out something better.

 

[tential]

From "Bulldozer cant game" we have a very performance/$ competitive CPU for todays games. I hope AMD learned their lesson and ZEN will not need 2-3 years of software optimization again and make ZEN continue from were Vishera and Excavator are today.

Bulldozer launched in an age where games weren't optimized for 8 cores.

Zen is launching pushing even more cores/threads in an age where games are at most optimized for 6-8 cores.

So, I don't see Zen winning gamers over....

Doesn't matter how old FX is. It is still their top of the line processor. Cant believe people are still using this excuse for FX performance and power usage. If it is too old and not competitive, AMD should have brought out something better.

The people I know with FX processors right now REALLY regret it. It's slower, consumes more power, dumps more heat into their rooms, not to mention other issues.

When the FX 8350 came out, Sandybridge was the competitor and better.
It's not a good choice now either since it's old tech on many levels. Either get an i3, or i7. Not the FX8350.

The FX 8350 isn't an option right now IMO.

 

[tential]

Do you actually believe that anyone would pay more than what the FX8350 is being sold TODAY for an SB/Ivy Core i5 ??
People keep forgetting this is a 2012 CPU that is very close with Intels 2013-2015 Core i5s in many of the latest games.



Definitely, if ZEN needs 2-3 years for software to catch up then say bye bye. ZEN needs to continue from where the Current CPUs are in order to succeed.

Sandybridge is a 2011 processor that's very closer with Intel's 2013-2015 offerings...

What's your point? Doesn't mean AMD will jump ahead just because of that.....

 

[3DVagabond]

I rarely look at the 9590 numbers.

8350 = 95 average 68 minimum
i5 4670k = 104 average 65 minimum

all the i7s stopped at 104 average with higher minimums (impact on experience not quantified).

that's hanging in there. 9 fps differences for $100+ price difference + years newer and 2 (?) manufacturing nodes ahead.

if you do OC though you are pretty much matching i7 performance at stock even with 400 Mhz OC.

I don't see how a 14nm zen won't clean up. They'd have to make a processor worse than the current fx (in games like this anyway).

They'll find examples where Intel is faster and make a big deal out of it in every review.

 

[3DVagabond]

Maybe after being trashed over and over again about how TERRIBLE Gameworks is in Ubisoft games, they decided to work on it?

Gameworks + Ubisoft = DO NOT BUY

For me anyway.

This can change my perception though of Gameworks and of Ubisoft.

Edit: Took a look at the actual images of the game and reviewed benches.
Is it my eyes/allergies or does the game look really meh?

I feel like there is a particular settings holding ALL the gpus back that we would normally set to a non Ultra setting. Beta, meh.

Maybe Ubisoft is tired of being roasted for releasing lousy buggy games and isn't just adding whatever nVidia wants them to. Or they just haven't added everything yet? I don't know? Are the Gameworks features in there and running for these benches?

 

[TheELF]

They'll find examples where Intel is faster and make a big deal out of it in every review.

Ahhhhh,like those guys posting linux benchmarks of obscure scientific programs and then be all like "told ya so,intel is paying everyone off" ?

Or as a matter of fact all the people in this thread,one review without even knowing the scene they tested and they are all like "amd is getting so overpowered,just wait and see"
When the only thing this bench shows is that games can't properly utilize more then 4 cores still.

 

[Anubis]

They did test High vs. Ultra:

970 HQ = 60 fps
280X HQ = 60 fps

970 UQ = 44 fps
280X UQ = 45 fps

It is in the OP's link in the first post.

im at work shits blocked

 

[Madpacket]

Considering that used 2500k's still sell close to the $125 that a 8320E goes for, I would say a good number would

Apples and oranges (New vs. Used). How much do used FX chips go for? Not really a valid argument.

 

[Silverforce11]

FX obviously were designed for an era where multi-threading is common. This was NOT the case back then. But these days most modern AAA titles are really well threaded and it's where this CPU uarch shines.

Despite being a few nodes behind and ancient, moar cores do work.

In a similar way, GCN was designed for an era where APIs can use its idle ACEs, which DX11 does not, so it's effective running crippled. However, the difference is FX CPU are non-competitive when it's crippled (not multi-threaded), while GCN is still very competitive in DX11.

I hope AMD can pull it off, no major delays, Zen will be as good as claimed and Polaris gives great perf/w. Intel is being very slack, selling tiny dies for ridiculous prices because nobody pushes them to try harder, total monopoly. We're so used to 5% performance gains on the CPU side with each generation, I never want that to happen for GPUs. NV needs a healthy AMD to push them along to not rip customers off like Intel has been doing all these years.

Back to this game, it seems Ubisoft's engines (FC4, ACU/S, Rainbow Siege and this one) is really well optimized for consoles, lots of weaker cores would require it for any big time AAA production. But their games don't look as good, perhaps they need to jump onto the PBR technique like Frostbite and Crystal Dynamics, the latest Tomb Raider looks stunning.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Back to this game, it seems Ubisoft's engines (FC4, ACU/S, Rainbow Siege and this one) is really well optimized for consoles, lots of weaker cores would require it for any big time AAA production. But their games don't look as good, perhaps they need to jump onto the PBR technique like Frostbite and Crystal Dynamics, the latest Tomb Raider looks stunning.

Those games do use PBR, their only recent AAA game that doesn't is Watch Dogs ...

The reason why their visuals might be sub-optimal in certain corner cases compared to other games could be due to their content authoring pipeline, material system, tweaking the lightning conditions for global illumination or they just plain need a better shading/rendering pipeline ...

It is very hard to get consistent visuals in a big game like Assassin's Creed plus don't take into account that games like those are doing a lot more in the background ...

 

[Silverforce11]

Yeah there's just something about the Ubisoft games that look a bit flat. Hard to nail what it is.

Far Cry Primal looks different though, seems they improved the rendering.

 

[tential]

Maybe Ubisoft is tired of being roasted for releasing lousy buggy games and isn't just adding whatever nVidia wants them to. Or they just haven't added everything yet? I don't know? Are the Gameworks features in there and running for these benches?

Nope. Because all gpus perform poorly on this title just because amd is ahead relative to nvidia changes nothing. Gpus struggling to do 1080p on this title makes no sense. Nvidia or amd. If nvidia was ahead people would be outraged. Instead the game is not buggy because amd is ahead?

Ok