what, you think someone sits there and watches Task Manager jotting numbers down quickly? lol
which is why I said disable core 1 on Module 0 / the module running the main thread, for a 15% performance boost
what, you think someone sits there and watches Task Manager jotting numbers down quickly? lolcore load from task manager does NOT show you the "real" utilization,
example from battlefield 4 ~90% on each core ,for the quad,does not mean that all 4 cores are being used 90% all the time,you have the main thread maxing out a core and the rest of them being filled up relative to the main thread.
right side you see task manager showing ~90% on all cores on the left side you see the actual threads,one thread at 22,5 of 25% total,and the rest much lower at 14-15% ,so the FPS you will get is bound by how fast your main thread will be able to run.
That doesn't mean that any old DX11-api-using game will gain the benefits of the DX12 API (low-level, etc.). It has to be re-coded.
Sure. But it isn't a small patch. It's a lot of work on the game dev's part to do it afaik. Maybe something like GTA V would get it, but most games available now or available even within a year of now won't be DX12.
It sounds like it's pretty much the same situation we had where DirectX 10 was such a major departure from previous versions that games had to include separate DirectX 10/11 and DirectX 9c codepaths to accommodate all the different possible hardware and software setups. And I don't think there were too many games circa 2006-07 that were released with DirectX 9c renderers and had DirectX 10 ones patched in later.
20% might have been true with Sandy Bridge, but with Haswell it seems that 25-35% is more typical, and outliers (mostly scientific computing) gaining 50-70% more performance from HT.
Trash Haswell based on what? A bunch of narrow integer cores with split FPUs like on FX simply can't hold a candle to proper wide cores
The thing is that a single Intel core can handle more than an AMD module can per clock cycle, especially when you factor in all the "command and control" latency that likely happens when using moar cores.
20% might have been true with Sandy Bridge, but with Haswell it seems that 25-35% is more typical, and outliers (mostly scientific computing) gaining 50-70% more performance from HT.
Of course it can. I'm using an overclocked Westmere EP Xeon X5650 hexcore & it performs on a par with i7-3770K in single thread and blows it away on multi-thread.
Looking at PCGameHardware I think overclocked Nehalem should be able to ouperform FX.
After 7 years, a 4GHz Core i7 920 still packs a punch. Great chip.
A CPU with 325w+ power consumption. Whew! Great chip indeed.
if you'd like to upgrade to something not 7 years old, you can get a Piledriver that uses 325w+ when overclocked
Really dont know, obviously the FX8350 throughput in this game is 89% greater than the FX4300 output, yet the score difference is only 23%..
Must admit that almost twice the computation for a so low improvement let me wondering....
what, you think someone sits there and watches Task Manager jotting numbers down quickly? lol
Yeah,games still are not distributed computing,if GTA V has 4 (or however many) exactly equally sized threads then show us a picture as prove.which is why I said disable core 1 on Module 0 / the module running the main thread, for a 15% performance boost
I think I'll be picking this one up at or near launch. I'd like to see how it plays, I've been told before my AMD CPU will get hammered in a game, but in real life they play quite well. I haven't played a GTA game in a while, looking forward to this one, it truly has that 'next gen' feel... or maybe that's just hype. Either way, I'm getting it and will report back and run some benches.
I think I'll be picking this one up at or near launch. I'd like to see how it plays, I've been told before my AMD CPU will get hammered in a game, but in real life they play quite well. I haven't played a GTA game in a while, looking forward to this one, it truly has that 'next gen' feel... or maybe that's just hype. Either way, I'm getting it and will report back and run some benches.
If you have some time left could you please test the FX with 7 ZIP MT at 4Ghz and say 4.4Ghz with RAM at 1600 and then at 1866 in both cases.?.
*** The VC&G thread isn't really focussed on CPU, this one will be ***
A 9590 cannot crack 60FPS minimums, an 8350 can't crack 50FPS, and those are the minimum dips you will notice and feel. Plus look at Haswell vs SNB there is a difference. The game can use a hexa core although grrr no 5820K. With Haswell's efficiencies it would be interesting to see. Also, note the difference between the slowest Haswell refresh and 4690, 3/4 FPS so if you are buying a locked Haswell, get the Highest clocked one.
I get what you're saying and I have no excuse for anyone saying it's a great gaming cpu in 2015, but it's old. Everyone knows it's old, and that it trailed Intel stuff gaming when it wasn't old more often than not. But they did give decent performance most of the time and if gaming is only part of what one is into some of aren't a bad deal still at times. It looks like an 8350 would probly gun gta v just fine for most people at 1080p. I had an 8350, a 9590 and now a 4790K, I think I've sampled enough plates recently to say they were a fine cpu for what they were. It's just depressing to see the aggressive beating of a sad dead horse. Churchill said something about it costing nothing to be polite to a man if you had to kill him.
That and the 2C2T minimum fps scenario.. I dont know what programming model is being used for the consoles but it sounds like the port is issuing at least 2 realtime priority threads that just hogs two cores no matter what.. All those busy busy waits would also total in 0% fps increase.
It would be easily detectable with processmonitor or the like (thread prio.).
you're not thinking hard enough about this to be worth my typing it out. I already gave you enough to be able to understand it.Sure,isn't this how they also count FPS?
Are you totally crazy or are you just pretending,you know enough about computers to know that there are monitoring programs out there,even opening up task manager you can see and write down the numbers at any one point.
It shows on the right side of the picture I posted, you can see every core's usage,you can take a screenshot at the same spot for each CPU and actually write down the numbers,even if you would need an hour to jot down each one.
Yeah,games still are not distributed computing,if GTA V has 4 (or however many) exactly equally sized threads then show us a picture as prove.
so the FPS you will get is bound by how fast your main thread will be able to run.
It can hardly reach this level unless overvolted, at stock and fully loaded the 9370 is at about 160W while the 9590 will be at 180W, that s a long shot from the official 220W.
Also, look at what video cards are needed for 60fps minimum. Have fun paying for a Titan. Unless you dropped an unreasonable amount of money, you're much more likely top be GPU limited than CPU limited across the board. On very high settings your wallet gets hammered if you need 60fps minimum.
Yea, wonder why, they sort of plummets compared to the rest there... cache sizes?
Your sarcasm detector is still broken. You should look into that.
Your sarcasm detector is still broken. You should look into that.