Gaming CPU

[rpglord]

The FX8120 is in the same category as the Core i5 CPUs. If you want to see a lower priced CPU review check my FX4100 vs the Core i3 DX-11 gaming evaluation.

I doubt you can say FX8120 is in the same category as i5 if i3 is going to be as fast as FX8120.
Why dont you test FX8120 vs i3 2100 you may be suprised.
Like I said,i5 2400 is Core i5 CPU and is certanly better in,as far as I know,same price category as fx 8120.

 

[boxleitnerb]

I have used the HD7970 in my review that is why i have higher fps than the 6950.

No, that is not certain. I'm pretty sure you will have significantly lower avg fps than 80 with the 7970, too. And honestly, I don't believe your benchmark with 3.2 and 4 GHz. No way that you could reproduce the first run so accurately over a full 325 seconds with 16 units, camera movements and the AI.

A more reliable method is the following (at least works on Intel CPUs):

1. Run the battle, set the camera to an interesting scene, press P for pause, make a screenshot with Afterburner OSD enabled. Alt tab out of the game.
2. Go to Windows energy options and lower the maximum processor state from 100% to a lower value. This decreases the frequency (no reboot required, you can do this on-the-fly
3. Go back into the game, check the CPU clock via the OSD and make another screenshot

This gives you completely repeatable results between different clock speeds. It's not a complete benchmark run, but that is impossible to reproduce anyway.

Edit: also i have run the same bench of my review with the HD6950 and i get almost the same performance as the battle i recorded.

See above.

Consider the following.

Perhaps the GTX580 needs more CPU performance than the HD6950 or the HD7970.
The game is faster with the AMD cards, dont forget it is a Gaming Evolved title.

Now we're getting somewhere. That would be interesting to investigate.

From the data i have gathered with the HD7970 in those 9 games the conclusion is that most of the Games are GPU limited at 1080p. Now, perhaps if i use a GTX680 the results may be different but the bottom line is that those games when played with the HD7970 are GPU bound.

Substitute "games" with "timedemos" and you are right.

Edit 2: I will bench the same battle with the FX and the core i5 2500K with the HD6950 in the weekend and ill let you know of the results.

How will you do that? You cannot reproduce the battle accurately enough. IF you commanded all the units the same way and IF you moved the camera the same way and IF you zoomed the same way and IF the AI reacted the same way, THEN ok. Alot of if's...

Edit:
I ran the integrated benchmark "game settings" with and without SLI.
Without SLI: 25.8fps
With SLI: 50.5fps

100% GPU limit, GPU load on both GPUs always 99%. The highest load on any CPU thread during this benchmark was around 60%. During actual gameplay, this is quite different. The CPU load is much higher, often close to 100% even with 4GHz, as you can see in my screenshots. The benchmark suggest you might run the game just fine while in fact you may not (in the thick of battle 20-30fps in my screenshots with the exact same settings).
I don't know what else I should tell you. It is completely logical. Just analyze what the benchmark actually shows you and you will realize how different this is from actual gameplay:

Few units in the field of view. Often closeups of only few soldiers. No action. No physics, AI, pathfinding.

 

[Red Hawk]

MicroCenter

AMD Bundle FX8120 + ASUS M5A97 AM3+ motherboard = $194,98
http://www.microcenter.com/specials/promotions/AMDbundlePROMO.html

Intel Core i5 2500K = $169,99
cheapest Z77 motherboard (Gigabyte GA-Z77-DS3H) = $109,99
Total = $279,98
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0354589

http://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.phtml?N=4294966996+4294939941+4294936811

The difference is $85. If we are budget constrain we can put the extra to a better Graphics Card or SSD or more RAM etc.

Can you say "cherrypicking"? First of all, that isn't the least expensive Z77 board. This is:

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0387326

$99.99. You can go cheaper if you settle for H61 (as low as $49.99, though you give up some features). Z77 isn't the only LGA 1155 northbridge type. And you're comparing an AMD bundle to separate Intel components. I'm not going to dig up an Intel bundle to compare, but your comparison was rather deceptive as far as portraying the best price you can get Intel components for.

From your link

http://translate.google.gr/#de|en|In%20Total%20War%20Shogun%202%20nutzen%20wir%20zum%20Einen%20den%20vordefinierten%20CPU%20Benchmark%20und%20der%20zweite%20Benchmark%20l%C3%A4uft%20mit%20den%20Qualit%C3%A4tseinstellungen%20%22Hoch%22.



From the Total War Shogun 2 interface on Steam

As you can see if you run the CPU benchmark it is only available in DX-9 mode.
I use the Game Settings Benchmark that runs the bench with the actual settings you put inside the game.

They clearly benched Total War in DX-9 mode so you cant compare their benchmarks with mine, not to mention they used a lower resolution of 1680x1050 .

Shogun 2's CPU benchmark runs in DirectX 9 with minimal settings (and at a resolution of 1280x1024) in order to eliminate as much of a GPU bottleneck as possible. It is a CPU benchmark, after all. The CPU benchmark has a ton of units actually fighting while the Game Settings benchmark only does a few camera passes of a scenario battle monologue. The CPU benchmark should be far more relevant at actually gauging CPU performance in Shogun 2. And it produces far more consistent results than simply benchmarking a battle that you set up.

You actually can go into the CPU benchmark .ini settings file and alter it, if you want, but I wouldn't see much point to that.

Edit: On second glance, the guy benched with both the CPU benchmark and the DX 11 High benchmark. So what if they used different settings than you? That's your problem, not ours. It should be trivial for you to benchmark the game with those settings.

 

[Magic Carpet]

AtenRa you are really funny.
You are comparing price of 2500k when it's clear cheaper intel cpu's are going to be either faster or as fast as an 8120 for example.
Shintai asked you a good question but you didnt answer..what do you think how much intel pentium sb + h61 mobo cost ? I bet its cheaper then 8120 + mobo yet its not slower.
We dont even have to take that low end,dual core cpu into account.
Lets take i5 2400 + h61 mobo for example ,it's not gonna be more expensive then 8120 setup yet it will be faster

Well, even Sandy Bridge Celeron (I have G540) can give you playable framerates. But.., it sucks hard when used for video encoding (Handbrake). If "wPrime" had been a game... Intel wouldn't have had a chance, though

 

[rpglord]

Well, even Sandy Bridge Celeron (I have G540) can give you playable framerates. But.., it sucks hard when used for video encoding (Handbrake). If "wPrime" had been a game... Intel wouldn't have had a chance, though

Yeah,because these are dual core chips...
I bet i5 2400 or similiar chips on cheap mobo where you cant overclock are gonna be faster then overclocked fx8120 or 8150 !

 

[AtenRa]

How will you do that? You cannot reproduce the battle accurately enough. IF you commanded all the units the same way and IF you moved the camera the same way and IF you zoomed the same way and IF the AI reacted the same way, THEN ok. Alot of if's...

You will find the battles you have recorded here.

C: \Users\Username\AppData\Roaming\The Creative Assembly\Shogun2\replays

Just copy the file to the next system and replay the same battle.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Interesting, thanks. But what about the camera? Its movements are not recorded. If you leave it where it is in the beginning, the benchmark is pointless as the CPU load and the fps are much higher than when you go to the action. But if you move it, it will be different every time. You see the dilemma?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah,because these are dual core chips...
I bet i5 2400 or similiar chips on cheap mobo where you cant overclock are gonna be faster then overclocked fx8120 or 8150 !

AMD just needs to sponsor a few+ AAA game titles that could make full use of 8-12 threads. If done right, people would have to upgrade from their dual-cores and ancient quad-cores to either 2600k Class or 81xx/PD. Processing power is there, software just needs to catch up.

 

[AtenRa]

Interesting, thanks. Does one have to finish the battle or is it possible to record only portions of it?

Well i haven't tried recording an unfinished battle but by using FRAPS i can choose how many secs i would like to benchmark.

If the battle is 500 secs i can put FRAPS to bench only 300 secs from the moment i will push the benchmark button. This way you benchmark the same sequence every time

 

[boxleitnerb]

I was refering to the replay, if one can save it in the middle of the battle. Anyway, this is a moot point since the camera remains free, thus this method is good for educational purposes but very poor as a benchmark unless one restricts himself to a very simple movement that can be properly repeated. Hey, there is an idea...

I loaded up my replay, moved the camera to a specified position, chose a specified viewing angle and started and stopped the benchmark at certain points during the battle:

42% higher clock results in 32% higher fps in the latter part of the benchmark when the action comes into view. This was with SLI.
I have just viewed the battle from another angle without SLI (will record tomorrow) where there is clearly a CPU limit when lots of units are fighting and running (routing). Don't forget that current cards are faster than my 580.

 

[Phynaz]

Cheapest board isn't necessary bad, though. They often lack some features else found in premium products, but build quality is usually very much the same.

Cheap boards have to skimp on quality, there's no other way to reduce the cost by much. Such as number of power phases, and the use of cheap caps.

Notice we aren't talking about inexpensive, we are talking about cheap. There is a difference.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Cheap boards have to skimp on quality, there's no other way to reduce the cost by much. Such as number of power phases, and the use of cheap caps.

Usually, they skimp on functionality and features first. Components are cheaper of course. But the build quality is about the same (same robots are used to manufacture).

Notice we aren't talking about inexpensive, we are talking about cheap. There is a difference.

I buy the cheapest stuff, quite often. The caps aren't rated as high... the PCB isn't that thick, little headroom available, that's true. But if operated within their specs, they are, absolutely fine. If somebody needs to overclock, they are usually not suited for that task. This is either a hardware or often, a software design limitation. So you go out and buy the more expensive gear. Same warranty still applies, $40 or $200.

Cheap isn't necessarily bad, it's just there to fill the gap in the market, sometimes... even at manufacturer's expense.

 

[Rvenger]

AMD just needs to sponsor a few+ AAA game titles that could make full use of 8-12 threads. If done right, people would have to upgrade from their dual-cores and ancient quad-cores to either 2600k Class or 81xx/PD. Processing power is there, software just needs to catch up.

I am curious to see if this does happen, if the tables will turn. I guess time will tell.

 

[soccerballtux]

AMD just needs to sponsor a few+ AAA game titles that could make full use of 8-12 threads. If done right, people would have to upgrade from their dual-cores and ancient quad-cores to either 2600k Class or 81xx/PD. Processing power is there, software just needs to catch up.

That's a really good idea.

 

[bononos]

Usually, they skimp on functionality and features first. Components are cheaper of course. But the build quality is about the same (same robots are used to manufacture).

I buy the cheapest stuff, quite often. The caps aren't rated as high... the PCB isn't that thick, little headroom available, that's true. But if operated within their specs, they are, absolutely fine. If somebody needs to overclock, they are usually not suited for that task. This is either a hardware or often, a software design limitation. So you go out and buy the more expensive gear. Same warranty still applies, $40 or $200.

Cheap isn't necessarily bad, it's just there to fill the gap in the market, sometimes... even at manufacturer's expense.

If it was a matter of just cutting out unwanted functionality you are right. The problem is that we don't really know what gets removed. For example I've seen several reviews that showed some cheaper mbs like a Biostar model showing higher latency (using dpc latency checker) which is annoying to diagnose if its a problem while gaming.

 

[2is]

Quality of the components is also part of build quality. it's not just about which robots are putting them together.