GTA V CPU benches - AMD gets hammered (again)

[TheELF]

And if you dedicate a couple of threads to video encoding with good enough priority and game at the same time, AMD chips will shine even more. I suspect, a Haswell i3 will get massacred by a five year old Thuban :awe:

>= 6T CPUs FTW.

On the I3 you could convert a video file with quick sync without impacting the cpu almost at all.
Then you could limit the fps from 68 to 56 which would give you enough idle cpu time to convert a second video file through the cpu,all at the same time.

Guess which cpu would look better.

 

[TheELF]

Unless my eyes are failing me, FX...Xs do well in this game,thats what they mean.

 

[Magic Carpet]

On the I3 you could convert a video file with quick sync without impacting the cpu almost at all.
Then you could limit the fps from 68 to 56 which would give you enough idle cpu time to convert a second video file through the cpu,all at the same time.

Guess which cpu would look better.

Of course, we can imagine different scenarios where i3 wouldn't look half as bad. But personally I prefer raw power over XYZ accelerated features, because when those don't work or aren't available, you can be in trouble. Point is, for what it is, i3 is seriously underpowered chip, right out of the gates. These days, 4 real cores are the way to go. Personally for my performance box, I wouldn't choose anything less than 4C/8T from Intel or 4 modules from AMD. Intel is being the preferable option, though.

 

[skipsneeky2]

My cousin allowed me to borrow his i3 3220 to do a proper i3 vs i7 3770 non k benchmark.These results are for maxed out 1080p with no msaa.....

i3 3220

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 25.971989, 49.098476, 38.667820
Pass 1, 16.185003, 49.537960, 29.624012
Pass 2, 26.189240, 61.312469, 42.239548
Pass 3, 21.397264, 63.848488, 44.070972
Pass 4, 14.215149, 66.751297, 33.724178

i7 3770 non k

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 36.479088, 79.168640, 61.016655
Pass 1, 22.118589, 57.585075, 38.031246
Pass 2, 29.148993, 128.328949, 67.049072
Pass 3, 34.399170, 128.807968, 71.836105
Pass 4, 17.553740, 129.209869, 54.879120


Results were run on a gtx970,all i did was swap processors and run the benchmark.

 

[XFXSupport]

My cousin allowed me to borrow his i3 3220 to do a proper i3 vs i7 3770 non k benchmark.These results are for maxed out 1080p with no msaa.....

i3 3220

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 25.971989, 49.098476, 38.667820
Pass 1, 16.185003, 49.537960, 29.624012
Pass 2, 26.189240, 61.312469, 42.239548
Pass 3, 21.397264, 63.848488, 44.070972
Pass 4, 14.215149, 66.751297, 33.724178

i7 3770 non k

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 36.479088, 79.168640, 61.016655
Pass 1, 22.118589, 57.585075, 38.031246
Pass 2, 29.148993, 128.328949, 67.049072
Pass 3, 34.399170, 128.807968, 71.836105
Pass 4, 17.553740, 129.209869, 54.879120


Results were run on a gtx970,all i did was swap processors and run the benchmark.

Wow thats a ~30-40% bottleneck. Kind of hard to believe. Thanks for the info

 

[skipsneeky2]

Wow thats a ~30-40% bottleneck. Kind of hard to believe. Thanks for the info

Been tons of fun benching,not usually much into benching these days but this game for me anyways has been the biggest title i have been excited about since BF3.

No problem at all doing this.:thumbsup:

 

[frozentundra123456]

Wow thats a ~30-40% bottleneck. Kind of hard to believe. Thanks for the info

Well that is an old i3. Haswell is considerably improved in gaming relative to sb/ivb.


Edit: this game appears to be close to worst case for i3 though. According to game.gpu 4670K is about 50% faster than Haswell i3, while in the year end summary of an average of 10 2014 games the i5 was only 10% faster.

 

[SlowSpyder]

27.9GB of 59.1GB downloaded. Going to make my FX and 7970 do some work tonight.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Well that is an old i3. Haswell is considerably improved in gaming relative to sb/ivb.

True,maybe not a major difference but still moderate.Something like a 7970/280x would make for a balanced 1080p config for this game assuming someone is upgrading solely for this title who has this generation or older i3.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Here is the i3 3220 with the 970 doing all low at 1080p....

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 40.079777, 75.031502, 62.191296
Pass 1, 54.411613, 102.082664, 85.903442
Pass 2, 49.817177, 126.805222, 82.252319
Pass 3, 52.236210, 95.426620, 80.151077
Pass 4, 8.458151, 128.755051, 78.255608

Recap with all maximum+0 msaa,pretty much bottlenecked by the i3 clearly....

Frames Per Second (Higher is better) Min, Max, Avg
Pass 0, 25.971989, 49.098476, 38.667820
Pass 1, 16.185003, 49.537960, 29.624012
Pass 2, 26.189240, 61.312469, 42.239548
Pass 3, 21.397264, 63.848488, 44.070972
Pass 4, 14.215149, 66.751297, 33.724178


Major difference in performance despite bottlenecks.Some of those settings certainly choke the i3 3220.Should check and see if those happen as dramatically with my i7 3770.

 

[CriticalOne]

The FX 6350 and 8350 did bench higher, albeit against one of the weakest i3s in the whole lineup, with the -T series SKUs only being worse. Also, those CPUs had a hefty clock rate advantage against the 4130 and only barely beat it, with the 6350 having a whopping one frame per second advantage and the 8350 having three. Lets not also forget that those FX series processors can Turbo Boost even higher, a feature that the i3 lacks.

Getting something like the i3 4150, which is a no brainer over the 4130, would have already negated the advantage the 6350 had. If you live near a Microcenter, getting the i3 4370 for $139 would had put you ahead of the 8350.

The type of person who still has a Phenom II X6 or buys an i3 isn't going to be doing x264 streaming while gaming. There's nothing wrong with an i3 if you use it knowing its limitations, which is multithreaded performance. Knowing that you need more multithreaded performance you should get a i5 in the first place. Lets remember that an i3 is a budget CPU line so don't set unrealistic expectations.

 

[soccerballtux]

http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

A 5 year old (2010) Phenom II X6 processor manages 56fps with current top of the line Titan X GPU, what a shame

Unless my eyes are failing me, FX8350/9590 is higher than Core i3

should I report inaccurate thread title? this honestly isn't that 'hammered'

 

[escrow4]

Who benches @ 1600p? Techspot failure. It should be 1080p or 720p at the very least. And I still wouldn't trust them as FPS vary wildly outside of Los Santos depending on the Grass quality setting. Every other benchmark though AMD still gets hammered and outclassed by Intel.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Who benches @ 1600p? Techspot failure. It should be 1080p or 720p at the very least. And I still wouldn't trust them as FPS vary wildly outside of Los Santos depending on the Grass quality setting. Every other benchmark though AMD still gets hammered and outclassed by Intel.

I agree about 720p,people like me game at 720/768p on televisions.I am moving up to IPS/1080P in a few weeks but still more reviews need to include 768p.

Steam stats show 768p being the second most used resolution period...that has to be worth something.4k and a 680 with very high settings getting 18fps,so enjoyable.:awe:

 

[Hans Gruber]

In mid to later 2013 I got my i5 3570K for $180. I could have got the 4670K Haswell for $220 but they were brand new and the first batch had trouble hitting 4.5ghz. I think I made the right choice as my 3570k is rock solid at 4.5ghz. I will run as low as 1.21v stable enough. I run it at 1.27v for stability.

There is no way any game or graphics card can bottleneck an i5 K series OC'd CPU. It would take triple or quad cards to bottleneck the i5 CPU's even back to the 2500k.

 

[SlowSpyder]

At 19x12 with a 1025MHz 7970 I'm GPU limited. GPU-z shows my GPU use at 99% the vast majority of the time. That was with my FX at not too crazy 4.6GHz. I'm also still quite early into the game.

 

[Hans Gruber]

At 19x12 with a 1025MHz 7970 I'm GPU limited. GPU-z shows my GPU use at 99% the vast majority of the time. That was with my FX at not too crazy 4.6GHz. I'm also still quite early into the game.

You want your GPU at 99%. That means it's being fully utilized.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree about 720p,people like me game at 720/768p on televisions.I am moving up to IPS/1080P in a few weeks but still more reviews need to include 768p.

Steam stats show 768p being the second most used resolution period...that has to be worth something.4k and a 680 with very high settings getting 18fps,so enjoyable.:awe:

I would expect that the vast majority of those 768p are laptops.

 

[2is]

I already have this game on PS4 and was thinking about picking it up for PC since that IS my preferred gaming platform. Decided to look up some comparisons and came away unimpressed. They had an extra 1.5 years and in most scenes the PS4 looks as good or better...

 

[jpiniero]

I already have this game on PS4 and was thinking about picking it up for PC since that IS my preferred gaming platform. Decided to look up some comparisons and came away unimpressed. They had an extra 1.5 years and in most scenes the PS4 looks as good or better...

That's pretty typical of a console port, especially when these consoles have enough memory where texture size isn't an issue. The PS4 version does suffer from frame rate issues though, although I believe patched it is a little better.

They aren't going to do more than the bare minimum beyond whatever additions either AMD or nVidia put in.

 

[AtenRa]

Graphics Quality : PS3 vs PS4 vs PC at 4K

http://imgur.com/a/4JrnE

 

[2is]

I'd hope 4K would look better than 1080p... I'm referring to apples to apples comparison 1080 vs 1080

 

[AtenRa]

I'd hope 4K would look better than 1080p... I'm referring to apples to apples comparison 1080 vs 1080

Even at 1080p the PC should have a huge IQ difference than PS4 and still be playable at 60fps with current high-end hardware.

 

[2is]

Even at 1080p the PC should have a huge IQ difference than PS4 and still be playable at 60fps with current high-end hardware.

Perhaps you didn't read my original post. I'm not theorizing.

"should" is the operative words. It should but it doesn't. That's what I'm saying. I didn't just make it up. I looked up the results before buying the game a second time. Yeah, there were a couple shoots here and there that you can argue for the PC, but those were in the minority. Most shots looked either the same or better on the PS4. Sad but true. I'm not saying the PS4 is a better or a more powerful gaming platform than PC, so if you feel the need to stick up for the PC's gaming prowess, you don't need to. My point is that it's a shitty port.

 

[AtenRa]

Perhaps you didn't read my original post. I'm not theorizing.

"should" is the operative words. It should but it doesn't. That's what I'm saying. I didn't just make it up. I looked up the results before buying the game a second time. Yeah, there were a couple shoots here and there that you can argue for the PC, but those were in the minority. Most shots looked either the same or better on the PS4. Sad but true. I'm not saying the PS4 is a better or a more powerful gaming platform than PC, so if you feel the need to stick up for the PC's gaming prowess, you don't need to. My point is that it's a shitty port.

I didnt think you said the PS4 was better hardware, but the image quality of PS4 in the images above is sub-par vs the PC even at 1080p. The PC lighting, Anti-Aliasing, Texture Quality, shadows etc etc are superior even at 1080p vs the PS4.