Initially I had attributed the rather large performance gap between the Core i7-4770K and the 6700K to the fact that the 6700K was clocked 500MHz faster -- that and the updated CPU architecture. However, once we underclocked the 6700K all the way down to 2.5GHz, the frame rate performance when paired with the GTX 980 Ti goes unchanged.
it's interesting to see how much slower the FM2+ CPU is compared to the 4 core AM3+ CPU, the only easy explanation would be l3 cache.
also interesting that the 6700K destroys everything else even underclocked to 2.5GHz, while skylake i3 (with 3MB of l3) is not anything special even at 3.7GHz
Looks like prescripted benchmarks again. A classic in the Tomb Raider series unfortunately. The previous one could get 74FPS on a 800Mhz Haswell, well below the 22FPS in actual gameplay.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35371206&postcount=7
Where do you see that? The 9590 at normal speed is barely any faster then the i3-4360 and practically the same speed as the i3-6100...Seems that the game LOVES multiple cores and faster ram... The FX 9590 seems that has decent fps from 3.00 GHz onwards... And the game is FPS capped BTW
Look well... Literally and except the 6700K, EVERY OTHER chip are on the range of 45-55 fps... Also I needed to add that the game seems to be optimized for Skylake since that scores are really abnormal for their tier (Core i3 near defeating the Haswell i5?)Where do you see that? The 9590 at normal speed is barely any faster then the i3-4360 and practically the same speed as the i3-6100...
And the game is FPS capped BTW
No it's not, I've seen well into the 200's.
Yeah but not everyone can afford three...baha jk!
Again guys, this game uses ONE SINGLE STUPID CORE!
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
That explains the weird scaling.
Yeah but not everyone can afford three...baha jk!
Again guys, this game uses ONE SINGLE STUPID CORE!
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
That explains the weird scaling.
The game running on ONE core
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=Tcf7zkQi_Yc
First world problems..... we has 'em.
What a joke. This is 2016; a AAA title like Tomb Raider should make use of multiple CPU cores.
Ah crap, no X5650 in the benches.
It may only use a single core but that is some impressive coding if they can actually run the game on a single core at those framerates.
It's appalling the reviewers are still ignoring this six core 1366 socket offering, considering how many people jumped on it. Really interesting to see how it's going against the more recent offerings from Intel/AMD. Passmark benches are getting tediously boring, we need gaming benchmarks!Damn right we do.
Damn right it should.
Damn, sorry man.
It's likely because few reviewers have an X58 still available in their testing stable. Ivy Bridge was available on the X99 platform before the X58 Xeon craze really took off, so the X58 platforms had probably been given away, sold off, returned, or whatever it is they do with them.It's appalling the reviewers are still ignoring this six core 1366 socket offering, considering how many people jumped on it. Really interesting to see how it's going against the more recent offerings from Intel/AMD. Passmark benches are getting tediously boring, we need gaming benchmarks!
Still rocking a 2500k. Wonder what the benchmark would be with a 30% overclock (4.5 GHZ). Would it be just as fast as skylake??????
Skylake is about 30% faster per clock compared to Sandy Bridge, so you are sitting on performance equivalent to a 4GHz Skylake without HT. Still a very solid piece of hardware that you are rocking.
It should be clear by now, that it is not the Skylake core but the faster memory interface. The game is apparently not compute bound...so you draw the wrong conclusion.
I think it's a mixture of both. Skylake needs the extra bandwidth to make use of its full potential.