Thief 4 CPU benchmarks

[escrow4]

Right, Sandy, Ivy, Haswell (hell, probably Nehalem) are more efficient than Vishera. That's well understood. But what is wrong with Vishera for gaming? Specifically this game. A lower end Vishera based processor that was released 15 months ago at a price of ~$120 still pushes 45FPS in a brand new AAA game at real world resolution and settings. Seems like Vishera is doing well enough.

45FPS average. What about the minimums? If 45 is the average I shudder to think of the dips you'd get whilst playing. An Intel i5, gets an extra 20FPS, just like that. Not a good showing in an old ass engine either.

 

[SlowSpyder]

45FPS average. What about the minimums? If 45 is the average I shudder to think of the dips you'd get whilst playing. An Intel i5, gets an extra 20FPS, just like that. Not a good showing in an old ass engine either.

Really? You shudder to think of minimum frame rates that might dip as low as ~30FPS in a new game on an 15 month old CPU that cost $120 when it was new?

I know that AMD isn't as good as Intel when it comes to performance in absolute terms. But I swear some of you would believe that Vishera struggles in Minesweeper. But I know it is more about jumping on the bandwagon than any practical real world gaming experience (where in the vast majority of games you'd struggle to tell if you had an AMD or Intel CPU at a given price point).

I can assure you, when I'm enjoying a good game on my system I'm not getting any less enjoyment than if I had an Intel CPU powering my system.

 

[escrow4]

Really? You shudder to think of minimum frame rates that might dip as low as ~30FPS in a new game on an 15 month old CPU that cost $120 when it was new?

Yes. And its rather old based on the engine tech. If you paid for rubbish, this is what you get. 15 months ago an extra $100 would have gotten you an i5 that can keep up. And 30FPS to me is unplayable. If it isn't 60FPS I may as well buy a console.

 

[Makaveli]

surprise surprise FX is actually excellent for once.

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

 

[Durp]

http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

Check post #45, escrow4 already posted it. ^_^

 

[Makaveli]

Check post #45, escrow4 already posted it. ^_^

lol I noticed that after I posted haha I wasn't done reading page 2 yet

 

[jj109]

It's hard to take TechSpot reviews seriously when their CPU benchmarks have a GPU-bottleneck plateau. See their BF4 benchmark...

 

[nwo]

That BF4 benchmark must be single player. There is no way that the results would look anywhere remotely close to that in a 32 or 64 multiplayer server...

 

[SPBHM]

It's hard to take TechSpot reviews seriously when their CPU benchmarks have a GPU-bottleneck plateau. See their BF4 benchmark...

yes, but 4 different tests were posted in this topic, it's enough to have a good idea, the game seems to like Intel CPUs (specially i5s) a lot more than anything else...

also, I have to say... sandy bridge i5 is a fantastic CPU, 3 years old and still pretty impressive for gaming... and some people choose the 8150 for gaming based on GPU bound tests...

 

[Erenhardt]

4?6?8 cores? Whatever.... Shame there is no phenom X2 in those charts. I bet it would be head to head with phenom X4 and X6.

It is probably a marketing stunt to show mantle in the best light possible. But it is not far from current situation with many games.

 

[frozentundra123456]

yes, but 4 different tests were posted in this topic, it's enough to have a good idea, the game seems to like Intel CPUs (specially i5s) a lot more than anything else...

also, I have to say... sandy bridge i5 is a fantastic CPU, 3 years old and still pretty impressive for gaming... and some people choose the 8150 for gaming based on GPU bound tests...

Yea, so much denial in this thread, its an old game, they used the wrong settings, the site that did the test is not reliable, etc, etc. Fact is, the preponderance of evidence shows amd performing poorly in this game. And this is a gaming evolved game.

 

[Haserath]

Right, Sandy, Ivy, Haswell (hell, probably Nehalem) are more efficient than Vishera. That's well understood. But what is wrong with Vishera for gaming? Specifically this game. A lower end Vishera based processor that was released 15 months ago at a price of ~$120 still pushes 45FPS in a brand new AAA game at real world resolution and settings. Seems like Vishera is doing well enough.

Why should anyone buy one when Intel offers much better options? Core 2 quad can do 'well enough' too.

I'm using a 5 year old processor that is faster.

Something is very wrong with PCGH's C2Q numbers. C2Q is no spring chicken, but we're still talking about a Penryn CPU at 3GHz. A 2500K is simply not going to be 3x faster than a fast C2Q. We didn't make that much progress in only 3 years.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/49?vs=288

It could depend on how it's used? Core 2 quads had dual core 2 dies and they used the northbridge for both GPU and memory communication.

Within 3 years, Intel went from MCM quad core to monolithic quad+integrated Mem controller&Pcie. Quite the jump.

 

[Enigmoid]

Is thief affected by memory bandwidth? Some games are quite limited like F1. That may be why core 2 does poorly.

 

[tweakboy]

BF4 likes CPU cores. That is the most taxing game imo. gl

 

[SPBHM]

Is thief affected by memory bandwidth? Some games are quite limited like F1. That may be why core 2 does poorly.

C2Q is doing fine, nothing like 300% gain for the other CPUs,

the PCGH test is just hard to be taken seriously at this point,

 

[sxr7171]

Actually virtually no tearing period. Triple buffering on. Brief look shows GPU usage at 99% with that 4770 (non-K) at 1200p.

After I used exclusive full screen I get no tearing. Solid 60fps. The game also looks impressively better. I don't think the regular full screen mode uses 1:1 pixel mapping. Also I noticed my GPU fan is quiet. I can't say that for AC4 or BF4 those peg my GPU at 99% and I hear the fan running loudly. I'm sure the noise is due to my over clock.

 

[davie jambo]

Bought this Saturday I was getting 50-90 fps with a FX8350 and a HD7970 so not sure what techspot is on about. Frames mostly in the 70s when playing the game but they drop down when it goes into a video sequence

 

[Makaveli]

Bought this Saturday I was getting 50-90 fps with a FX8350 and a HD7970 so not sure what techspot is on about. Frames mostly in the 70s when playing the game but they drop down when it goes into a video sequence

How about you list the res and what game settings also.

Kinda of important information no?

 

[davie jambo]

How about you list the res and what game settings also.

Kinda of important information no?

Everything set to max 1080p

HD7970 and FX8350. Benchmark says 50 , but in game it's much higher like 70-90 with occasional drop to 50

How they managed to get only 47 fps using an R9 290x is a mystery

 

[escrow4]

Everything set to max 1080p

HD7970 and FX8350. Benchmark says 50 , but in game it's much higher like 70-90 with occasional drop to 50

How they managed to get only 47 fps using an R9 290x is a mystery

Those drops. I suspect they are much more frequent, hence the low average. Thing is, the i5's don't drop. Install MSI Afterburner and keep an eye on the FPS - is it solid smooth 50-60FPS or are FPS typically all over the place with that 7970?

 

[Makaveli]

Everything set to max 1080p

HD7970 and FX8350. Benchmark says 50 , but in game it's much higher like 70-90 with occasional drop to 50

How they managed to get only 47 fps using an R9 290x is a mystery

Also I think techspot mentioned in the review the benchmark taxes the gpu more than just a quick run through, which would explain the numbers.

 

[davie jambo]

Those drops. I suspect they are much more frequent, hence the low average. Thing is, the i5's don't drop. Install MSI Afterburner and keep an eye on the FPS - is it solid smooth 50-60FPS or are FPS typically all over the place with that 7970?

I run fraps all the time when gaming and tbh it only drops to 50s during cut scene parts. Actually gameplay would be around the 70 fps mark. Goes up to 90 when looking at a wall , around 70-80 when loads of stuff is going on. I'd say the average is 75 or something like that

Very strange to get 47 fps on a card more powerful than mine when everything else is very similar

 

[Makaveli]

Very strange to get 47 fps on a card more powerful than mine when everything else is very similar

I think its because you are not benchmarking the same area's in the game.

your numbers are fraps based and theirs from the benchmark?

 

[AtenRa]

I think its because you are not benchmarking the same area's in the game.

your numbers are fraps based and theirs from the benchmark?

He said that he got 50fps running the in-game benchmark with his FX8350 + HD7970 when techspot got 47fps with the FX8350 + R9 290X.

Everything set to max 1080p

HD7970 and FX8350. Benchmark says 50 , but in game it's much higher like 70-90 with occasional drop to 50

How they managed to get only 47 fps using an R9 290x is a mystery

@davie jambo
You get 50fps with the FX8350 at default 4GHz ??? What motherboard do you use ???

 

[Makaveli]

He said that he got 50fps running the in-game benchmark with his FX8350 + HD7970 when techspot got 47fps with the FX8350 + R9 290X.




@davie jambo
You get 50fps with the FX8350 at default 4GHz ??? What motherboard do you use ???

Then I guess it will be an unsolved mystery for now.