No need of two posts to quote what are twin straws....
So set apart putting words into other people mouths what could be your contribution to this debate..?..
Games aren't just integer performance or else FX would be right up there with Haswell i7s. FX is an interger moster. I'm talking about instructions per clock, not integer performance clock.
It's not absurd to think the 2600k does more with 69% across all 8 threads (not 71%) than almost 5 cores of an FX-8350 (61%).
Likely the code is being held back from a single thread that branches off and assigns other tasks. Core one has a 77% load and the other 23% is spread across the "secondary" cores of the modules, but is still held back from the performance of one core. Mantle/DX12 couldn't come soon enough for titles like this.
Highlighting your struggles with reality.
The FPS numbers and the CPU utilization are both symptoms of a problem but the cause is still unknown.
Okay, where's the 860k in this benchmark? They benched an FX-4100 but not an 860k? No love for FM2+!
Hell where's any of the FM2/FM2+ CPUs/APUs? Even if you don't like the 860k, there's a lot of 4.5-5 ghz 760ks floating around out there.
I'm betting on PS3 an 360 legacy support.
Lets be frank, it is not true next gen game. They did amazing job optimizing it for newer hardware. It uses 4 threads very well, and shows some benefit with even more cpu threads. But the true next gen title will scale much better with 4+ threads.
Going with the OP tone...
... Intel Haswell i5 4670k - what an utter piece of garbage. It cannot crack 60 fps minimums. I wouldn't put that chip in my garage HTPC. State of the art cpu cannot run smoothly 12 years old ps3/360 port. I bet you couldn't tell a difference if you plugged potato chip in your socket?
/derp
IPC has nothing to do with it, to summarize the FX8350 at 61% of its (integer) throughput is on par with a 2600K that is at 72% of its throughput, so the two CPUs are providing the same amount of computation yet the results are largely different.
Of course this imply that the FX has 20% higher integer throughput than a 2600K, wich is the case.
Intel is consistent. AMD isn't. Again. Rockstar put a lot of work into this port and an i5 gets very close whilst AMD lags behind. Again. Wasn't it supposed to be "future-proof" with *snorts* 8 "cores"?
Games aren't just integer performance or else FX would be right up there with Haswell i7s. FX is an interger moster. I'm talking about instructions per clock, not integer performance clock.
It's not absurd to think the 2600k does more with 69% across all 8 threads (not 71%) than almost 5 cores of an FX-8350 (61%). Likely the code is being held back from a single thread that branches off and assigns other tasks. Core one has a 77% load and the other 23% is spread across the "secondary" cores of the modules, but is still held back from the performance of one core. Mantle/DX12 couldn't come soon enough for titles like this.
Boy I am glad I made the rational choice and when against my inner fanboy and went with the Intel 4690K instead of the crappy FX 9590. Gives self pat on the back and welcomes ones self to Intel Master Race !
hyperthreading has potential to add 20% performance.
dual-core in modules have potential to add 80% performance.
With 5 heavily loaded threads, the chip with the HT is going to show as 'more heavily utilized'
To AMD FX credit they due alright but still missing the mark and just a bit less than perfection ... Intel on the other hand 100% perfection as always. I am sure nobody will really tell the dofference beyween an FX 9590 and an Intel Core i5 in GTA V as far as performance goes if they use Vsync ... Heat and power consumption on the other hand well thats another thing LOL.
Looking at PClab numbers there s quite a discretanpcy in frequency scaling with AMD CPUs despite the GPU not being bottlenecked at this level.
The pentium and i3 scale at as much as 90% with frequency while the AMD are stuck at 50% scaling, wich is not the case on Gamegpu graph that show as good scaling as Intel...
installing this on Win10 with DX12 may grant more performance a la the mantle efficiency gains.
We'll see.
I didn't think that installing a DX11 game on Win10 would give you DX12 results? I thought the game would have to be built against DX12?
To AMD FX credit they due alright but still missing the mark and just a bit less than perfection ... Intel on the other hand 100% perfection as always. I am sure nobody will really tell the dofference beyween an FX 9590 and an Intel Core i5 in GTA V as far as performance goes if they use Vsync ... Heat and power consumption on the other hand well thats another thing LOL.
core load from task manager does NOT show you the "real" utilization,if this is the case, something you guys would do is disable core 1 to hypothetically give the main thread the entire module. Let the other 6 cores on an FX-8xxx pick up the extra load.
In fact, this is confirmed with the first core load averages across the 4, 6, and 8 core chips:
Interesting that FX-4310 @3.8 GHz beats X4 965 @ 4.0 GHz. That should not happen, I would think?
hmmmm
could be patched in.
my understanding was DX12 is basically a software change in a more efficient rendering pipeline, and basically all the DX11.1 cards are ready to go with DX12.
with a username like that I'm almost certain you seriously considered AMD.
That said, I wouldn't consider the 9590 myself, only the $130 and below FX-8xxx chips. Intel can't match that performance for the money.
Ah you need max OC on an AMD FX CPU as they are very slow on per core performance and IPC which means a high end cooler and PSU is needed. That's why I went to Intel this time around. If/When AMD comes out with a new beast CPU I will go back to them as I am an AMD Fanboy.Heat isn't an issue with a cheap aftermarket cooler (freezer pro 7). Even with prime on all cores, 4.3Ghz at 1.4V it doesn't crack 60C. Gaming Starcraft 2 I rarely see it crack 42C and in NBA 2K15 (which is more demanding than this game) it doesn't ever crack ~54C. During cut scenes the CPU usage spikes to ~90% at times.