Page 131 of 253 FirstFirst ... 318191101111121128129130131132133134141151161171181231 ... LastLast
Results 2,081 to 2,096 of 4036

Thread: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

  1. #2081
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    You mean like this one? http://www.scan.co.uk/products/gigab...-dvi-hdmi-mitx

    But yeah, this late in the game I would wait for Kaveri
    Sigh. I guess it's a just a little more waiting for the right CPU... Maybe more motherboards will come out in the meanwhile. For a fair period, it was only AsRock with news of an FM2+ miniITX part...

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    I having a feeling its more the case,here is a £280 to £300 worth of competitors products,which are slower in the game we run.
    My view was that AMD primarily wanted to compare with the 630. The 4770k was there to say; "if you think we are bottlenecking the graphic card, you are insane".

  2. #2082
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by AETAaAS View Post
    My view was that AMD primarily wanted to compare with the 630. The 4770k was there to say; "if you think we are bottlenecking the graphic card, you are insane".
    That makes more sense. Still doesn't prove a lot though :-\
    No one buys a 630 with serious hope of gaming

  3. #2083
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,033
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,376 times in 2,713 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by Biscuit View Post
    That makes more sense. Still doesn't prove a lot though :-\
    No one buys a 630 with serious hope of gaming
    Nor, as yet, an APU I presume.

  4. #2084
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Nor, as yet, an APU I presume.
    Well there is a difference between seriously considering gaming and gaming seriously. Neither apply to the 630 however an APU can be gamed on at a low to medium level

  5. #2085
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,721
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked
    243 times in 223 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by scaryjim View Post
    Probably truer to say it's an embedded product, rather than mobile. Intel list it as desktop and it's got a 65W TDP - not very mobile friendly
    Sure. Or that it is even truest that those two parts (i5-4570R, i5-4670R) are iNtel Apple parts. But then I guess Iris Pro (and to a lesser extend HD3000, HD4000 and HD4600) are mostly something Intel is doing because of Apple.


    Quote Originally Posted by AETAaAS View Post
    My view was that AMD primarily wanted to compare with the 630. The 4770k was there to say; "if you think we are [CPU] bottlenecking the graphic card, you are insane".
    I think you are spot on there. But of course with multiplayer games like this and SC2 etc., the actual map makes a huge difference. Benchmark built into games rarely show actual multiplayer gaming. That's why I don't have a problem with those 640x480 CPU scaling benches - for most things they are silly (FPSs into the 100s etc.) but for benching CPUs they are handy.

  6. #2086
    Headless Chicken Terbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,670
    Thanks
    1,209
    Thanked
    727 times in 595 posts
    • Terbinator's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASRock H61M
      • CPU:
      • Intel Xeon 1230-V3
      • Memory:
      • Geil Evo Corsa 2133/8GB
      • Storage:
      • M4 128GB, 2TB WD Red
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX Titan
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX760i
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster 130
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell Ultrasharp U2711H
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 60Mb.

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by kompukare View Post
    That's why I don't have a problem with those 640x480 CPU scaling benches - for most things they are silly (FPSs into the 100s etc.) but for benching CPUs they are handy.
    But they are still silly as it's a ridiculous setting no one uses.
    Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
    CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
    TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
    for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.

  7. #2087
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,033
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,376 times in 2,713 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by Terbinator View Post
    But they are still silly as it's a ridiculous setting no one uses.
    Well only silly if you are claiming it's a representative benchmark of someone's likely experience. But they're usually not, they're usually benchmarks of CPU performance and to assess that you have to remove other bottlenecks.

  8. #2088
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,908
    Thanked
    5,213 times in 4,005 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    The issue is that running a benchmark at low resolution and low settings,is problematic in a few areas IMHO:
    1.)The CPU loading profile itself will probably be different,and you might find yourself hitting an artificial bottleneck. This would be a combination of the game engine and the drivers. Even in a game some settings are CPU heavier,so running at lower settings will reduce this load.
    2.)It does not indicate what the actual bottleneck in the game is,ie,GPU or CPU or both at normal settings. How long will it take for modern graphics card at 1920X1080 to show the CPU bottleneck?? If it is GPU limited at 1920X1080,how much more GPU power would you need to see a bottleneck at that resolution and how many years??
    3.)By the time the CPU might be a bottleneck in a game,further patches or expansions might load the CPU differently.

    The problem is that it leads to people spending way too much on CPUs,when they really would be better served by getting a cheaper CPU and spending the rest on a better graphics card. It even leads to situations where people make upgrades from good enough CPUs.

    I would rather look at benchmarks at the normal resolutions of 1680X1050,1920X1080/1200 and 2560X1440/1600 to see what is more important with a game.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 12-11-2013 at 09:56 PM.

  9. #2089
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,033
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,376 times in 2,713 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    But CPU benchmarks aren't about how you experience the game, they're about testing different CPUs.

    You wouldn't normally test a Ferrari, McLaren and Porsche in a town with a 30mph speed limit, despite the fact they're going to be used in towns a lot of time. You want to know what the differences in performance are.

  10. #2090
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,042
    Thanks
    3,908
    Thanked
    5,213 times in 4,005 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    But CPU benchmarks aren't about how you experience the game, they're about testing different CPUs.

    You wouldn't normally test a Ferrari, McLaren and Porsche in a town with a 30mph speed limit, despite the fact they're going to be used in towns a lot of time. You want to know what the differences in performance are.
    People are running their games at 1680X1050,1920X1080/1200 and 2560X1440/1600 not 640X480. If the realworld loading is different than artificially low settings,it tells you NO useful information.

    People are reading those benchmarks at 640X480 to infer 1680X1050,1920X1080/1200 and 2560X1440/1600 performance not 640X480 performance.

    The CPU loading profile is going to differ between higher and lower resolutions and different game settings,as the drivers and game engine will be not doing exactly the same thing. The bottlenecks are different.

    How many reviews bother to study the CPU loading at different settings and resolutions,down to how many threads are used,etc??

    That low resolution and low settings benchmark might show one CPU faster than the other simply because one setting at low might cause less cores to be used for example.

    If a game with a high end graphics card is not CPU limited at 1920X1080,then the 640X480 benchmarks are pointless,since the game is GPU limited not CPU limited. You cannot say when the graphics cards will be fast enough to hit the CPU limitation at 1920X1080 as it could be years.

    All these low resolution benchmarks have done is make people spend too much money on CPUs,when they are better served buying a faster graphics card.

    It also explains why most gamers who don't have high K series Core i5 are still running plenty of games fine,ie,their GPU is the bottleneck not a CPU.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 12-11-2013 at 10:20 PM.

  11. #2091
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,033
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,376 times in 2,713 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    People are running their games at 1680X1050,1920X1080/1200 and 2560X1440/1600 not 640X480. If the realworld loading is different than artificially low settings,it tells you NO useful information.
    It tells you how the CPU performs at that resolution. Nothing more, nothing less. The real world loading difference between reducing GPU demand at low resolution and throwing a bigger GPU at the same resolution is not hugely different - where not GPU limited the CPU chucks out loads of frames and becomes limiting.

    People are reading those benchmarks at 640X480 to infer 1680X1050,1920X1080/1200 and 2560X1440/1600 performance not 640X480 performance.
    Well that's their own stupid fault then, not the reviewers
    Last edited by kalniel; 12-11-2013 at 10:25 PM.

  12. #2092
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    That sort of review is misleading though TBH - not everyone will scrutinise the settings used for testing, or indeed understand the impact they may have on the results.

    These reviews are plain assuming CPU performance scales perfectly from these low settings up to realistic settings, and make no effort to prove or demonstrate this. Real-world tests run using real settings, in real games (online or otherwise) have time and time again shown that performance does not scale this way.

    They are simply useless and biased unless you happen to be running the latest games at 640x480 on your £1000 rig and want 300fps.

    Edit: Oh and an example I've just thought of, since the subject of using these 'benchmarks' to assess how well the CPU will cope under stress in the game. Say something like an i3 scores higher than something like a 6300 at low-res, sitting staring at a wall. Great, with one render thread being about the only thing stressing the CPU, and things like game simulation, physics, net code, and so on, using other threads but sitting nearly idle, the i3 can crank out an extra 10fps. Now add some more players into the game, throw a few grenades, demolish some buildings; those previously near-idle threads suddenly load up and the dual core tanks in fps.
    Last edited by watercooled; 12-11-2013 at 10:48 PM.

  13. #2093
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,721
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked
    243 times in 223 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Well the most detailed of these benches are probably the pcgameshardware.de ones; the GameGPU.ru ones aren't as useful since that site has a fair few CPUs missing.

    But when the do, for example, BF4 CPU scaling article they run at 1280x720 (might be the lowest BF4 runs at?) and do various tests like frequency and core count scaling.

    However, these tests are not meant to be taken in isolation. To get a good idea of what to buy you really have to look at their GPU scaling plus the CPU scaling tests. Unfortunately, there is no site which allows people to input their monitor resolution, acceptable AA, GPU budget and CPU budget and gives them a custom bench. Which is fair enough: there's simply too much data (10 x CPU + 10 x GPU = 100 tests plus resolutions and settings).

    Cat is right of course: if people only casually look at the benches or ask in one of those 'Intel are gods' forums they will end up blowing most of their budget on a CPU. PC gaming enthusiast do love a bit of e-pen and elitism but of course fail to realise if PC gaming looks so expensive to enter into, then there will be less PC games making PC gaming even more expensive etc.

  14. #2094
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Oh I'm not saying *all* CPU benchmarks are pointless, just the ones that run at silly settings and assume perfect scaling. GameGPU.ru seem to have most of the market segments covered with CPUs IIRC? They might not have literally every CPU going, but you can often get a fairly accurate estimation of say an i5 2500 of there is a 2500k present.

  15. #2095
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,721
    Thanks
    197
    Thanked
    243 times in 223 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 4 x 8GB DDR3
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 850 EVo 500GB | Corsair MP510 960GB | 2 x WD 4TB spinners
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sappihre R7 260X 1GB (sic)
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic)
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x ViewSonic 27" 1440p

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    GameGPU.ru seem to have most of the market segments covered with CPUs IIRC? They might not have literally every CPU going, but you can often get a fairly accurate estimation of say an i5 2500 of there is a 2500k present.
    Last ones I saw had no IB. Something about not buying CPUs but only using what the companies have sent them (guess they never give reviewers samples back). Guess the i5 performance whether SB, IB or Haswell is well enough known though, but i3's in IB/Haswell would be nice to see there too - just in case found a fuse they could leave unblown on those to catch up with the FX6300 for instance; FX6100 to FX6300 is over 30% faster in CoD Ghost after equalising for frequency.

    Also, no cheap Intel (Pentiums / Celerons) or FM2 CPUs. Guess Intel and AMD PR don't send those out much either.

  16. #2096
    Oh Crumbs.... Biscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N. Yorkshire
    Posts
    11,193
    Thanks
    1,394
    Thanked
    1,091 times in 833 posts
    • Biscuit's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Mortar
      • CPU:
      • AMD 2700X (Be Quiet! Dark Rock 3)
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Patriot Viper 2 @ 3466MHz
      • Storage:
      • 500GB WD Black
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290X Vapor-X
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus Gold 750W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li PC-V359
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 80/20

    Re: AMD - Piledriver chitchat

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    It tells you how the CPU performs at that resolution.
    Which is utterly useless information. Nothing more.
    Adding this information into a review is downright irresponsible. It suggests that they are considering as part of their conclusion to the review and that other people should factor it in their buying decision when it offers no real life value.
    Gaming benchmarks should be tested in realistic gaming environments, if you want to test a CPU in an environment which is unlimited by the GPU then use a benchmark which will do that without prejudice.
    Last edited by Biscuit; 13-11-2013 at 01:23 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 71 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 71 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •