Watchdogs2 benchmarks

[AtenRa]

Wow. I can't help but to look at those benches and admit those saying the FXs would eventually catch up with Intel on gaming were right.

Good news for Zen.

Yea people recommended the Haswell Core i3 4130 at $120 and Core i3 4330 at $140 back in 2013 vs the FX8320 at $140. Every FX8320 could be OCed to 4.4GHz and be faster than what the FX8350 is today in those 2016 games. Look at the Haswell Core i3 today, those users will need a CPU upgrade soon when FX 83xx owners will even be more than fine even with GTX 1080 SLI.

Even today one month before the end of 2016 people still recommend Core i3s for new games, it is better to get a Core i5 6400 than any Core i3 today. But some people dont learn. You will see how many will recommend the new Core i3 7350K next month because of the high ST performance neglecting that latest games need more than 4 real cores,not threads, otherwise you have awful frametimes.

 

[happy medium]

Uhh, NO, Happy. Just NO. At least, not for the "gimp bin" i5-6400. Mine wasn't stable at 4.5Ghz, so I had to settle for 4.455. Not going to push higher than 1.410V, and 85C on air.

Thanks for the info., I never saw any data for the 6400, I'll be looking for a 6500 if Kabylake does not hit 5hgz.. I just saw one for sale for $140.

 

[AtenRa]

Thanks for the info., I never saw any data for the 6400, I'll be looking for a 6500 if Kabylake does not hit 5hgz.. I just saw one for sale for $140.

I would happily give up 1GHz (4 vs 5) but increase Core count by 50% to 6 vs 4 (on the same arch)

This obsession with fastest ST no matter what in the end of 2016 is beyond me, we have already have seen what latest game engines are capable for and people still persist on pursuing the fastest Single Thread performance no matter what.

 

[Spjut]

It's of course nice to see the FX 8320 gaining ground in newer games, but owners of those CPUs had to wait three to four years for that to happen. i3 vs FX 8320 was a gamble of taking significantly lower performance in current games but possibly get higher performance in future games.
When it came to the i5 vs i7 debate, i7 had no disadvantages other than the price increase.

 

[happy medium]

I would happily give up 1GHz (4 vs 5) but increase Core count by 50% to 6 vs 4 (on the same arch)

I would happily agree but a handful of games that start to look a bit faster using more cores is not a game changer,Yet! .
It looks promising though.

 

[AtenRa]

It's of course nice to see the FX 8320 gaining ground in newer games, but owners of those CPUs had to wait three to four years for that to happen. i3 vs FX 8320 was a gamble of taking significantly lower performance in current games but possibly get higher performance in future games.
When it came to the i5 vs i7 debate, i7 had no disadvantages other than the price increase.

I will only agree for those that wouldnt OC the FX8320, those that did OC they had more performance than Core i3 4130 from the start in the majority of the games. Yes there were some games that Core i3 4130 was faster but in general a 4.4GHz FX8320 was faster even in the end of 2013 when Haswell Core i3s was released.

As the time was passing by, the FX was getting faster and faster in games (Mantle, DX-12 etc etc) vs the Core i3 Haswell, today you can hardly find a AAA 2016 game that Haswell Core i3 is faster or have better frametimes than a 8 core 4.4GHz FX.

 

[AtenRa]

I would happily agree but a handful of games that start to look a bit faster using more cores is not a game changer,Yet! .
It looks promising though.

Well depends on the games you play, for fps Multiplayer games the more cores the better since 2012-2013 vs Fastest ST performance.

 

[Spjut]

I will only agree for those that wouldnt OC the FX8320, those that did OC they had more performance than Core i3 4130 from the start in the majority of the games. Yes there were some games that Core i3 4130 was faster but in general a 4.4GHz FX8320 was faster even in the end of 2013 when Haswell Core i3s was released.

As the time was passing by, the FX was getting faster and faster in games (Mantle, DX-12 etc etc) vs the Core i3 Haswell, today you can hardly find a AAA 2016 game that Haswell Core i3 is faster or have better frametimes than a 8 core 4.4GHz FX.

Compared to a basic motherboard and running the FX 8320 at stock speeds though, how much more did it typically cost to get a good mobo and cooler for overclocking the FX 8320 to 4.4 ghz? Not really a remark, just curious

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Just for giggles I looked on microcenter website and I can get an 8320 and a ASRock 970 extreme mobo combo for around $110.- after rebate. That is a very good value and should certainly be at the top of any budget gamers wish list.

 

[happy medium]

Well depends on the games you play, for fps Multiplayer games the more cores the better since 2012-2013 vs Fastest ST performance.

Yea, I was so close to pulling the trigger on a 6 core 5820K for $300 a while back. I think the guys who bought them and overclocked to 4.4 got the best of both worlds cheap. 6 Cores and ST performance.
The 5820k overclocked would wipe the floor with anything but the overclocked 8 core Intel monsters that cost quite a bit of money.

 

[happy medium]

Just for giggles I looked on microcenter website and I can get an 8320 and a ASRock 970 extreme mobo combo for around $110.- after rebate. That is a very good value and should certainly be at the top of any budget gamers wish list.

Actually anyone who buys a AMD chipset and cpu now,in my opinion, need their head examined.

I would never buy a old, end of life platform.

 

[Bacon1]

Not at all.

Did you mean to post something else? Because the single benchmark you listed doesn't show fury having issues with VRAM at all. Click on the tab next to it and you'll see that with textures reduced the 3gb cards gain FPS while the fury stays the same. According to PCGH even @ 720p and lowest (CPU testing) Fury is still behind the 480. So its not GPU / VRAM perf thats the issue, its an issue with the game optimization and most likely failure to properly cull missing objects (which the 480 has improved hardware for).

 

[tg2708]

Get evga precision x 5.3.11

Goes up to the same percentage

 

[AtenRa]

Compared to a basic motherboard and running the FX 8320 at stock speeds though, how much more did it typically cost to get a good mobo and cooler for overclocking the FX 8320 to 4.4 ghz? Not really a remark, just curious

You dont need a very expensive motherboard to OC any 8 Core FX to 4.4GHz, my ASUS M5A97 R2.0 could easily sustained 4.6GHz. And those 125W TDP Default coolers could actually cope with a 4.4GHz OC if you would close Turbo and lower Voltage to sub 1.4125v. But if you needed a more silent solution, a $25-30 Coolermaster Hyper 212 Evo is more than enough for a silent 4.4GHz operation.

 

[AtenRa]

Yea, I was so close to pulling the trigger on a 6 core 5820K for $300 a while back. I think the guys who bought them and overclocked to 4.4 got the best of both worlds cheap. 6 Cores and ST performance.
The 5820k overclocked would wipe the floor with anything but the overclocked 8 core Intel monsters that cost quite a bit of money.

5820K at $300 and OC to 4.4GHz is even better than any Kabylake today, outstanding performance for that price. That should have been the $300 CPUs two years ago, not the 4C 8T SKUs.

 

[PhonakV30]

Actually anyone who buys a AMD chipset and cpu now,in my opinion, need their head examined.

I would never buy a old, end of life platform.

If you say so then by looking at CPU chart , It's wrong to buy Intel Core I3 ! those who bought AMD FX CPU , will be happy with this result.in 2017 , We're are moving to new world with Moar shitty Tasks in game! whether You dislike or not , It's happened.

 

[coercitiv]

Actually anyone who buys a AMD chipset and cpu now,in my opinion, need their head examined.

Well, you certainly made your stand on the issue very clear. Do you often go to people in shops making a bad $100 purchase and tell them to get their heads examined? Must be a holistic experience, guiding people back towards the light.

 

[TheELF]

Are you guys seriously debating fx vs i3 based on this game?
Look at that crap,this is full on artificial performance limiting,
in which universe are the i5-2500k and i5-4670k only 10% apart in IPC?
No matter how many threads this game runs on the quads,since it can make use of the 8c/16t one it should use both i5s at 100% and the difference in FPS should match the difference in IPC.
Same for i7-4770 and i7-6700,ubifail did the same thing with watch dogs 1 and got tons of bad rap for it.

 

[poofyhairguy]

in which universe are the i5-2500k and i5-4670k only 10% apart in IPC?

uhhhh, this one?

The 2600k beats the 4670k in almost every modern game.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

The universe where Haswell is 10% ahead of Sandy in IPC is this one, especially in games.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-review

Scroll down to the tests at 4.4GHz. Every test shows 10-12% or less 2600K vs 4790K.

This also holds for stock i5s.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i5-6600k-review

 

[TheELF]

The universe where Haswell is 10% ahead of Sandy in IPC is this one, especially in games.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-review

Scroll down to the tests at 4.4GHz. Every test shows 10-12% or less 2600K vs 4790K.

This also holds for stock i5s.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i5-6600k-review

Yeah in games where going from i5 to i7 doesn't give you much gains,what have I been explaining?
This game can use 16 threads it should show more gains then games that use the i5 to a lower degree.

And also what's your explantation for i7-4770 vs i7-6700,they only have 1% IPC difference?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Yeah in games where going from i5 to i7 doesn't give you much gains,what have I been explaining?
This game can use 16 threads it should show more gains then games that use the i5 to a lower degree.

And also what's your explantation for i7-4770 vs i7-6700,they only have 1% IPC difference?

I don't think that the number of threads used is directly correlated to how pronounced the IPC difference is going to be. In fact, I don't know if there's any direct relation, maybe correlation. What is the (true) IPC difference anyway? and from where are you drawing the numbers?

I'm pretty sure most or all of those games fully utilize i5s regardless.

Regarding the 4790K vs 6700K, I don't know what you mean when you say 1% IPC difference. A number of those games show fair gains with Skylake and others don't, it's the nature of different software. GTA 5 for example shows that the 4.4GHz 6700K is 17% faster than its 4.4GHz Haswell predecessor. However, the 4690K is only 12% faster than the 2500K stock for stock in that same game, which includes a minor clock speed advantage.

I think you're just overestimating Haswell. Skylake is the where the real gains are.

 

[tg2708]

uhhhh, this one?

The 2600k beats the 4670k in almost every modern game.

I7 vs i5 so should win most games where it's multithreaded.

Also performance is atrocious

 

[dogen1]

The universe where Haswell is 10% ahead of Sandy in IPC is this one, especially in games.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i7-6700k-review

Scroll down to the tests at 4.4GHz. Every test shows 10-12% or less 2600K vs 4790K.

This also holds for stock i5s.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-intel-skylake-core-i5-6600k-review

In some applications haswell has 20-30% higher IPC than sandy/ivy bridge. The difference is especially pronounced in emulators. Look at dolphin and pcsx2 benchmarks. Huge improvement there.

I guess they hit multiple areas where haswell had improvements, whereas games only benefited from some. Plus, emulators tend to be a lot more CPU bound anyway, magnifying differences.

 

[Head1985]