<!--quoteo(post=2056026:date=Jan 4 2013, 12:13 PM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Jan 4 2013, 12:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056026"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thank you So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol.. you said it much nicer than I was about to.
Davil you clearly are trying to skew reality to prove me wrong on my claim of "no intel cpu can stay above 60fps" .. I wish I never said it, because you are so hung up on it now. But just because I'm an argumentative prick, I'm going to point out how you were wrong for two reasons: 1.) your full game graph clearly shows you drop to 40fps in late game combat. And don't tell me it was due to the "aliens win" thing, its horsecrap. That pops up for 3 seconds then we are in the ready room and back to 100+ fps even on a slow system. Also you can clearly see the ready-room increase way at the end.. so how about the 5 min before ready room? You obviously have similar drops late game just like when I mentioned mine drops to 25-30 some times.. but now you just fixate on that number as if that is my avg fps.. derp 2.) I was talking about stock speeds Intel chips vs stock speed AMD chips.. you have a very expensive and very overclocked setup. Funny how you forgot to mention this chip is so overclocked in your initial graph post ..
Stop being a troll about this, and stop telling everyone AMD chips are a waste of money. A fx 6300 can be had for about $130 and run NS2 no problem especially if overclocked . An i7 2600k can be had for about $315 and clearly it handles the game even better, but do you really think its justified to claim the AMD chip is a waste of money when it can achieve 80 FPS early game and 50 fps late game with occasional drops to 30 - meanwhile your chip has 130+ fps early game, 60+ late game and occasional drops to 40.. so late game which is clearly the most problematic for people, you gain a whopping 10-20 fps for an additional $185 chip wise , not to mention you spend a crap ton of cash on water cooler, SLI, etc .. Basically it comes down to budget - Intel is the better chip but it costs more. For those on a budget build, the AMD chips are a perfectly viable option. You can make an argument the Intel chips are a "better value" but to say the AMD chips are a "waste of money" is just idiotic trolling.
Now that we have side tracked this guys thread I'm going to stop posting, lets take it to the performance results thread and please try to be unbiased in the future..
<!--quoteo(post=2056026:date=Jan 4 2013, 09:13 AM:name=MiniH0wie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MiniH0wie @ Jan 4 2013, 09:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056026"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thank you So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yea that 3 minutes wasn't the final base rush because that took all of about 30 seconds. Also I'm not 100% that each tick is an actual second on here. But something else was clearly happening because that drop really just came out of nowhere, might have been my video cards throttling since I didn't lock my fps during this. Also it's pretty important to note that Fraps actually drops your FPS pretty hard in some games such as this one.
<!--quoteo(post=2056040:date=Jan 4 2013, 09:38 AM:name=buhehe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (buhehe @ Jan 4 2013, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess you're CPU limited when u hit those 40fps, right? Does the game scale decently with your SLI?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not sure what the reason for that happening was but I was barely ever at 40fps and it was just in that one brief period for some reason. Looking back on it nothing was really happening that hadn't been happening for most of the game and I was actually spending a lot of time dead during those last 2 minutes or so. SLI works pretty well really, Nvidia put in a profile but it's like SLI with anything, it's really only worth it at very high resolutions or when PhysX is being utilized.
<!--quoteo(post=2056091:date=Jan 4 2013, 10:46 AM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 4 2013, 10:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lol.. you said it much nicer than I was about to.
Davil you clearly are trying to skew reality to prove me wrong on my claim of "no intel cpu can stay above 60fps" .. I wish I never said it, because you are so hung up on it now. But just because I'm an argumentative prick, I'm going to point out how you were wrong for two reasons: 1.) your full game graph clearly shows you drop to 40fps in late game combat. And don't tell me it was due to the "aliens win" thing, its horsecrap. That pops up for 3 seconds then we are in the ready room and back to 100+ fps even on a slow system. Also you can clearly see the ready-room increase way at the end.. so how about the 5 min before ready room? You obviously have similar drops late game just like when I mentioned mine drops to 25-30 some times.. but now you just fixate on that number as if that is my avg fps.. derp 2.) I was talking about stock speeds Intel chips vs stock speed AMD chips.. you have a very expensive and very overclocked setup. Funny how you forgot to mention this chip is so overclocked in your initial graph post ..
Stop being a troll about this, and stop telling everyone AMD chips are a waste of money. A fx 6300 can be had for about $130 and run NS2 no problem especially if overclocked . An i7 2600k can be had for about $315 and clearly it handles the game even better, but do you really think its justified to claim the AMD chip is a waste of money when it can achieve 80 FPS early game and 50 fps late game with occasional drops to 30 - meanwhile your chip has 130+ fps early game, 60+ late game and occasional drops to 40.. so late game which is clearly the most problematic for people, you gain a whopping 10-20 fps for an additional $185 chip wise , not to mention you spend a crap ton of cash on water cooler, SLI, etc .. Basically it comes down to budget - Intel is the better chip but it costs more. For those on a budget build, the AMD chips are a perfectly viable option. You can make an argument the Intel chips are a "better value" but to say the AMD chips are a "waste of money" is just idiotic trolling.
Now that we have side tracked this guys thread I'm going to stop posting, lets take it to the performance results thread and please try to be unbiased in the future..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And now to again tell you how wrong you are. You're looking at 1 game, where I joined at the end during an alien victory where everything in the map was cysted with particles going nuts and everything on max. Your machine isn't doing anything close to what mine is so don't even try to compare them. Your AMD processor sucks, period. YOU wasted money, on a POS AMD cpu that is not even close to an i5 3570 performance wise, end of story.
Secondly, Fraps drops my fps quite a bit. Typically if I'm playing this any just checking my fps via my keyboard LCD, which is on a constant update as well monitoring FPS, GPU usage, voltage, heat, etc... I don't drop below 90 regardless of what is happening in game. *Edit: After further testing my FPS doesn't go below 90 and stays around 130 when I'm not running Fraps.
Thirdly the "end game" part your talking about isn't a gradual drop, that was something else going on in the background. It didn't just slow down progressively it was a sudden drop, which means something strange happened and that's not typical.
So to show the difference I jumped in a game in the middle on marine side and played for about 9 minutes before it ended. <img src="http://an.davidsirritation.com/fps3.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This graph shows my average at around 100fps, and this one was on the same settings and the map was refinery. So it may have been the map but I think refinery is a much more visually detailed map. My fps did not dip below 60, lowest was actually 61 which occurred once and the next was 68. The highest was about 142.
Lastly, you don't know what you're talking about, everyone keeps telling you this but you're too stubborn to admit it. I'd like AMD if they made a better CPU or video card. I used to buy ATI/AMD cards all the time until they started performing like garbage compared to my Nvidia cards and had too many artifacts or messed up poly issues. I'm not a fan boy of Intel but you're clearly a fan boy of AMD and it's not healthy. Let it go. Spend a little extra for a quality CPU and you'll find that it's well worth it.
<!--quoteo(post=2056158:date=Jan 4 2013, 04:39 PM:name=0xDECAFBAD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (0xDECAFBAD @ Jan 4 2013, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I smell a troll<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not a troll, an AMD owner.
IDK I'm happy with my AMD. Wish it was more energy efficient but oh well. Running the Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4GHz. I'll have to double check late stage game play but I played for quite a while with task manager open on my second monitor and I never maxed out any cores. I play at 1440 x 900 resolution at max graphics and the lowest frame-rate I get is 30 which doesn't bother me too much. If I was going to play competitively I probably wouldn't want anything lower than 50-60.
<!--quoteo(post=2056164:date=Jan 4 2013, 04:50 PM:name=0xDECAFBAD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (0xDECAFBAD @ Jan 4 2013, 04:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056164"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IDK I'm happy with my AMD. Wish it was more energy efficient but oh well. Running the Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4GHz. I'll have to double check late stage game play but I played for quite a while with task manager open on my second monitor and I never maxed out any cores. I play at 1440 x 900 resolution at max graphics and the lowest frame-rate I get is 30 which doesn't bother me too much. If I was going to play competitively I probably wouldn't want anything lower than 50-60.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I upgraded from a 1090T to a 2500K. The difference was night and day.
If I'm not maxing out any cores right now I doubt it will make a difference. At least in NS2. Is NS2 client side even CPU bottlenecked? I know it is server side.
I always felt AMD CPUs had a better $/performance ratio. The overclocked i5s look pretty nice. i7s seem overpriced imo. Unless you're doing something really CPU intensive like video editing or converting video files maybe. I've checked my core usage on a number of modern games and I never saw my system being bottlnecked at the CPU, although I do have mine overclocked somewhat.
EDIT: Are i7s just hypthreaded i5s? I haven't been keeping up with Intel's offerings lately.
<!--quoteo(post=2056183:date=Jan 4 2013, 10:32 PM:name=0xDECAFBAD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (0xDECAFBAD @ Jan 4 2013, 10:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056183"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always felt AMD CPUs had a better $/performance ratio. The overclocked i5s look pretty nice. i7s seem overpriced imo. Unless you're doing something really CPU intensive like video editing or converting video files maybe. I've checked my core usage on a number of modern games and I never saw my system being bottlnecked at the CPU, although I do have mine overclocked somewhat.
EDIT: Are i7s just hypthreaded i5s? I haven't been keeping up with Intel's offerings lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back in the Conroe days you could buy (at release) an E4000 series for <£100 that would clock to 3.0GHz easy and you could even buy those dual core E2140s for about £40 and also get to 3.0GHz with no issues.
You now need to spend a min of £160 for an unlocked K series.
I have a Radeon 7770 and it runs damn good in NS2 so the 7970 must defenitly do the job.
My friends advice me to buy Intel/Nvidia because of 'their problems' with AMD/ATI but my systems always runs better then their expensive crap. Most I know are proud on their Intel/Nvidia systems but the computer shop installed their windows and there it stops... :)
This is silly you guys, the data is out there. It's not a matter of opinion which chip performs better in which scenario. It seems to me that Davil must be trolling, he's given a lot of bad advice with fallacious supporting arguments, and his tone and attitude are overly aggressive and insulting. It's like he's actively trying to pick a fight. My advice is simply don't feed the troll.
Are Intel CPUs currently better than AMDs for gaming? Yes.
As you can see, while the flagship Vishera 8350 tends to lag a bit behind the Intel chips in almost every gaming test, the gap is not catastrophic by any means. There are other resolutions where the differential is a little more pronounced, but the chip turns in adequate performance at every level. Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice. So, while the Intel chips are 'better' on the whole, it does not mean the AMD selection is 'garbage', just maybe not the most absolutely efficient use of your budget.
To read a more in-depth article with even more benchmarks, go here: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-835...eview,3328.html</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2056175:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:09 PM:name=0xDECAFBAD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (0xDECAFBAD @ Jan 4 2013, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If I'm not maxing out any cores right now I doubt it will make a difference. At least in NS2. Is NS2 client side even CPU bottlenecked? I know it is server side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because your CPU isn't sitting at 100% doesn't necessarily mean you aren't being bottle-necked.
<!--quoteo(post=2056216:date=Jan 4 2013, 07:42 PM:name=duvel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (duvel @ Jan 4 2013, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a Radeon 7770 and it runs damn good in NS2 so the 7970 must defenitly do the job.
My friends advice me to buy Intel/Nvidia because of 'their problems' with AMD/ATI but my systems always runs better then their expensive crap. Most I know are proud on their Intel/Nvidia systems but the computer shop installed their windows and there it stops... :)
Go AMD and buy another one next year :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The GTX680 and 7970 trade blows quite well. I wouldn't call either a bad buy. My last card was a 5850 (lasted me 3 years, still works, gave it to my sister, amazing card). I went with a GTX670 because I prefer nvidia's driver suite and support. I honestly have no problem with AMD's graphics cards (CCC sucks though).
If we're talking about CPUs for gaming though then it's really no contest. Intel wins every time.
<!--quoteo(post=2056255:date=Jan 4 2013, 08:57 PM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Jan 4 2013, 08:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is silly you guys, the data is out there. It's not a matter of opinion which chip performs better in which scenario. It seems to me that Davil must be trolling, he's given a lot of bad advice with fallacious supporting arguments, and his tone and attitude are overly aggressive and insulting. It's like he's actively trying to pick a fight. My advice is simply don't feed the troll.
Are Intel CPUs currently better than AMDs for gaming? Yes.
Are AMD CPUs still a viable option? Yes.
As you can see, while the flagship Vishera 8350 tends to lag a bit behind the Intel chips in almost every gaming test, the gap is not catastrophic by any means. There are other resolutions where the differential is a little more pronounced, but the chip turns in adequate performance at every level. Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice. So, while the Intel chips are 'better' on the whole, it does not mean the AMD selection is 'garbage', just maybe not the most absolutely efficient use of your budget.
To read a more in-depth article with even more benchmarks, go here: <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-835...eview,3328.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're going to spend $200 on an AMD processor then why wouldn't you instead spend $200 on the better intel processor? They are the same price, but one is irrefutably better.
So.. can someone explain how you get these nice graphs of fps? Whenever I benchmark (latest version 3.5.9 fully registered) I get a nice excel sheet with a table, and a text document listing out all the FPS.. ? What are you guys doing to get these graphs I keep seeing?
I'm not saying Intel is bad but I tested an i3 this week and it slows down when overheated. It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.
And most I know seem to be happy with their systems, and that is just from reading info but they have never installed or tuned windows and therefore I can not accept their results.
This does not concern nvidia, ik prefer NVidia over ATI but I never had problems with ATI.
<!--quoteo(post=2056267:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:09 PM:name=SixtyWattMan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SixtyWattMan @ Jan 4 2013, 06:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056267"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're going to spend $200 on an AMD processor then why wouldn't you instead spend $200 on the better intel processor? They are the same price, but one is irrefutably better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=2056255:date=Jan 4 2013, 05:57 PM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Jan 4 2013, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there an echo in here? :P
I wholeheartedly recommend Intel chips for gaming, as I have already said a couple times, just dispelling some of the nonsensical bluster about AMD CPUs being 'garbage'. They aren't as good, but they're not worthless either.
<!--quoteo(post=2056299:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM:name=duvel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (duvel @ Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying Intel is bad but I tested an i3 this week and it slows down when overheated. It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most modern processors will throttle down to avoid permanently damaging the hardware at certain temperature thresholds. If you are reaching that limit, the problem is not with your CPU but your cooling solution.
All i3 chips are dual-cores with hyperthreading to virtualize additional cores for multithreading, a small amount of reading would have told you this up front. Similarly, the AMD chips also share certain resources, so the '8' core 8350 doesn't actually have 8 independent cores.
<!--quoteo(post=2056315:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:06 PM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Jan 4 2013, 06:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is there an echo in here? :P
I wholeheartedly recommend Intel chips for gaming, as I have already said a couple times, just dispelling some of the nonsensical bluster about AMD CPUs being 'garbage'. They aren't as good, but they're not worthless either.
Most modern processors will throttle down to avoid permanently damaging the hardware at certain temperature thresholds. If you are reaching that limit, the problem is not with your CPU but your cooling solution.
All i3 chips are dual-cores with hyperthreading to virtualize additional cores for multithreading, a small amount of reading would have told you this up front. Similarly, the AMD chips also share certain resources, so the '8' core 8350 doesn't actually have 8 independent cores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To note GPU's do this as well. Much more. Unless you are running under liquid your GPU is going to get too hot at full boar.
<!--quoteo(post=2056277:date=Jan 4 2013, 05:21 PM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Jan 4 2013, 05:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So.. can someone explain how you get these nice graphs of fps? Whenever I benchmark (latest version 3.5.9 fully registered) I get a nice excel sheet with a table, and a text document listing out all the FPS.. ? What are you guys doing to get these graphs I keep seeing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just open the excel spread sheet click the A column header to select that whole column and insert a graph, I like the look of a bar graph vice the line graph personally.
<!--quoteo(post=2056277:date=Jan 4 2013, 09:21 PM:name=rmbrown09)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rmbrown09 @ Jan 4 2013, 09:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So.. can someone explain how you get these nice graphs of fps? Whenever I benchmark (latest version 3.5.9 fully registered) I get a nice excel sheet with a table, and a text document listing out all the FPS.. ? What are you guys doing to get these graphs I keep seeing?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I use FRAFS Bench Viewer. <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/frafsbenchview/" target="_blank">http://sourceforge.net/projects/frafsbenchview/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=2056299:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM:name=duvel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (duvel @ Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying Intel is bad but I tested an i3 this week and it slows down when overheated. It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.
And most I know seem to be happy with their systems, and that is just from reading info but they have never installed or tuned windows and therefore I can not accept their results.
This does not concern nvidia, ik prefer NVidia over ATI but I never had problems with ATI.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ??? How do you overheat an i3? Its a locked cpu so you did not do it by overclocking Only thing I can think of is you ran mayonnaise for thermal compound Max temps should be in the 50s on a i3 with the stock cooler Thermal throttling happens at 100c or so
Pentium G6XX and G8XX and IB based are dual core NON HT cpus i3 is a dual core CPU with HT i5 is a quad core without HT i7 is a quad core with HT
G860 is 64$ and outperforms nearly every AMD cpu made(in gaming)
I rather have an AMD cpu that runs 3% slower then an Intel that runs at 70% because it is overheated. Why do you need better and more expensive hardware if most likely your windows is a rarely maintained mess...
This week I have my computer back and I will upgrade the cpu to a phenomII, and since i'm no longer a gamer I will save my money and buy me a nice Mercedes-Benz :p
Comments
So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol.. you said it much nicer than I was about to.
Davil you clearly are trying to skew reality to prove me wrong on my claim of "no intel cpu can stay above 60fps" .. I wish I never said it, because you are so hung up on it now. But just because I'm an argumentative prick, I'm going to point out how you were wrong for two reasons:
1.) your full game graph clearly shows you drop to 40fps in late game combat. And don't tell me it was due to the "aliens win" thing, its horsecrap. That pops up for 3 seconds then we are in the ready room and back to 100+ fps even on a slow system. Also you can clearly see the ready-room increase way at the end.. so how about the 5 min before ready room? You obviously have similar drops late game just like when I mentioned mine drops to 25-30 some times.. but now you just fixate on that number as if that is my avg fps.. derp
2.) I was talking about stock speeds Intel chips vs stock speed AMD chips.. you have a very expensive and very overclocked setup. Funny how you forgot to mention this chip is so overclocked in your initial graph post ..
Stop being a troll about this, and stop telling everyone AMD chips are a waste of money. A fx 6300 can be had for about $130 and run NS2 no problem especially if overclocked . An i7 2600k can be had for about $315 and clearly it handles the game even better, but do you really think its justified to claim the AMD chip is a waste of money when it can achieve 80 FPS early game and 50 fps late game with occasional drops to 30 - meanwhile your chip has 130+ fps early game, 60+ late game and occasional drops to 40.. so late game which is clearly the most problematic for people, you gain a whopping 10-20 fps for an additional $185 chip wise , not to mention you spend a crap ton of cash on water cooler, SLI, etc ..
Basically it comes down to budget - Intel is the better chip but it costs more. For those on a budget build, the AMD chips are a perfectly viable option. You can make an argument the Intel chips are a "better value" but to say the AMD chips are a "waste of money" is just idiotic trolling.
Now that we have side tracked this guys thread I'm going to stop posting, lets take it to the performance results thread and please try to be unbiased in the future..
So now we can see the real picture. Before it looked like you never went under ~60fps but your real graph shows that you suffer late game low fps like everyone else where you were dropping down to 40fps.
As for the drop in fps at the end, I don't see that as being caused by the "Aliens Win" text. Your drop started around 801 and stayed low until about 980 which is roughly 3:00 minutes worth. I'm guessing there was some serious fighting going on right at the very end.
Btw, that is a nice performance you've got going there. Just wish we weren't getting those late end game fps drops.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea that 3 minutes wasn't the final base rush because that took all of about 30 seconds. Also I'm not 100% that each tick is an actual second on here. But something else was clearly happening because that drop really just came out of nowhere, might have been my video cards throttling since I didn't lock my fps during this. Also it's pretty important to note that Fraps actually drops your FPS pretty hard in some games such as this one.
<!--quoteo(post=2056040:date=Jan 4 2013, 09:38 AM:name=buhehe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (buhehe @ Jan 4 2013, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056040"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I guess you're CPU limited when u hit those 40fps, right?
Does the game scale decently with your SLI?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what the reason for that happening was but I was barely ever at 40fps and it was just in that one brief period for some reason. Looking back on it nothing was really happening that hadn't been happening for most of the game and I was actually spending a lot of time dead during those last 2 minutes or so. SLI works pretty well really, Nvidia put in a profile but it's like SLI with anything, it's really only worth it at very high resolutions or when PhysX is being utilized.
<!--quoteo(post=2056091:date=Jan 4 2013, 10:46 AM:name=joederp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (joederp @ Jan 4 2013, 10:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056091"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->lol.. you said it much nicer than I was about to.
Davil you clearly are trying to skew reality to prove me wrong on my claim of "no intel cpu can stay above 60fps" .. I wish I never said it, because you are so hung up on it now. But just because I'm an argumentative prick, I'm going to point out how you were wrong for two reasons:
1.) your full game graph clearly shows you drop to 40fps in late game combat. And don't tell me it was due to the "aliens win" thing, its horsecrap. That pops up for 3 seconds then we are in the ready room and back to 100+ fps even on a slow system. Also you can clearly see the ready-room increase way at the end.. so how about the 5 min before ready room? You obviously have similar drops late game just like when I mentioned mine drops to 25-30 some times.. but now you just fixate on that number as if that is my avg fps.. derp
2.) I was talking about stock speeds Intel chips vs stock speed AMD chips.. you have a very expensive and very overclocked setup. Funny how you forgot to mention this chip is so overclocked in your initial graph post ..
Stop being a troll about this, and stop telling everyone AMD chips are a waste of money. A fx 6300 can be had for about $130 and run NS2 no problem especially if overclocked . An i7 2600k can be had for about $315 and clearly it handles the game even better, but do you really think its justified to claim the AMD chip is a waste of money when it can achieve 80 FPS early game and 50 fps late game with occasional drops to 30 - meanwhile your chip has 130+ fps early game, 60+ late game and occasional drops to 40.. so late game which is clearly the most problematic for people, you gain a whopping 10-20 fps for an additional $185 chip wise , not to mention you spend a crap ton of cash on water cooler, SLI, etc ..
Basically it comes down to budget - Intel is the better chip but it costs more. For those on a budget build, the AMD chips are a perfectly viable option. You can make an argument the Intel chips are a "better value" but to say the AMD chips are a "waste of money" is just idiotic trolling.
Now that we have side tracked this guys thread I'm going to stop posting, lets take it to the performance results thread and please try to be unbiased in the future..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And now to again tell you how wrong you are. You're looking at 1 game, where I joined at the end during an alien victory where everything in the map was cysted with particles going nuts and everything on max. Your machine isn't doing anything close to what mine is so don't even try to compare them. Your AMD processor sucks, period. YOU wasted money, on a POS AMD cpu that is not even close to an i5 3570 performance wise, end of story.
Secondly, Fraps drops my fps quite a bit. Typically if I'm playing this any just checking my fps via my keyboard LCD, which is on a constant update as well monitoring FPS, GPU usage, voltage, heat, etc... I don't drop below 90 regardless of what is happening in game. *Edit: After further testing my FPS doesn't go below 90 and stays around 130 when I'm not running Fraps.
Thirdly the "end game" part your talking about isn't a gradual drop, that was something else going on in the background. It didn't just slow down progressively it was a sudden drop, which means something strange happened and that's not typical.
So to show the difference I jumped in a game in the middle on marine side and played for about 9 minutes before it ended.
<img src="http://an.davidsirritation.com/fps3.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This graph shows my average at around 100fps, and this one was on the same settings and the map was refinery. So it may have been the map but I think refinery is a much more visually detailed map. My fps did not dip below 60, lowest was actually 61 which occurred once and the next was 68. The highest was about 142.
Lastly, you don't know what you're talking about, everyone keeps telling you this but you're too stubborn to admit it. I'd like AMD if they made a better CPU or video card. I used to buy ATI/AMD cards all the time until they started performing like garbage compared to my Nvidia cards and had too many artifacts or messed up poly issues. I'm not a fan boy of Intel but you're clearly a fan boy of AMD and it's not healthy. Let it go. Spend a little extra for a quality CPU and you'll find that it's well worth it.
Not a troll, an AMD owner.
I upgraded from a 1090T to a 2500K. The difference was night and day.
EDIT: Are i7s just hypthreaded i5s? I haven't been keeping up with Intel's offerings lately.
EDIT: Are i7s just hypthreaded i5s? I haven't been keeping up with Intel's offerings lately.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back in the Conroe days you could buy (at release) an E4000 series for <£100 that would clock to 3.0GHz easy and you could even buy those dual core E2140s for about £40 and also get to 3.0GHz with no issues.
You now need to spend a min of £160 for an unlocked K series.
My friends advice me to buy Intel/Nvidia because of 'their problems' with AMD/ATI but my systems always runs
better then their expensive crap.
Most I know are proud on their Intel/Nvidia systems but the computer shop installed their windows and there it stops... :)
Go AMD and buy another one next year :p
Are Intel CPUs currently better than AMDs for gaming? Yes.
Are AMD CPUs still a viable option? Yes.
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/0/7/364183/original/res_syn_3dmark_combined.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/P/364165/original/game_crysis_ii.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/4/357664/original/battlefield%203%202560.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/Y/S/357652/original/skyrim%202560.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/Z/5/357665/original/world%20of%20warcraft%202560.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/T/357617/original/average%20power.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
As you can see, while the flagship Vishera 8350 tends to lag a bit behind the Intel chips in almost every gaming test, the gap is not catastrophic by any means. There are other resolutions where the differential is a little more pronounced, but the chip turns in adequate performance at every level. Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice. So, while the Intel chips are 'better' on the whole, it does not mean the AMD selection is 'garbage', just maybe not the most absolutely efficient use of your budget.
To read a more in-depth article with even more benchmarks, go here:
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-835...eview,3328.html</a>
Just because your CPU isn't sitting at 100% doesn't necessarily mean you aren't being bottle-necked.
<!--quoteo(post=2056216:date=Jan 4 2013, 07:42 PM:name=duvel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (duvel @ Jan 4 2013, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have a Radeon 7770 and it runs damn good in NS2 so the 7970 must defenitly do the job.
My friends advice me to buy Intel/Nvidia because of 'their problems' with AMD/ATI but my systems always runs
better then their expensive crap.
Most I know are proud on their Intel/Nvidia systems but the computer shop installed their windows and there it stops... :)
Go AMD and buy another one next year :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The GTX680 and 7970 trade blows quite well. I wouldn't call either a bad buy. My last card was a 5850 (lasted me 3 years, still works, gave it to my sister, amazing card). I went with a GTX670 because I prefer nvidia's driver suite and support. I honestly have no problem with AMD's graphics cards (CCC sucks though).
If we're talking about CPUs for gaming though then it's really no contest. Intel wins every time.
Are Intel CPUs currently better than AMDs for gaming? Yes.
Are AMD CPUs still a viable option? Yes.
As you can see, while the flagship Vishera 8350 tends to lag a bit behind the Intel chips in almost every gaming test, the gap is not catastrophic by any means. There are other resolutions where the differential is a little more pronounced, but the chip turns in adequate performance at every level. Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice. So, while the Intel chips are 'better' on the whole, it does not mean the AMD selection is 'garbage', just maybe not the most absolutely efficient use of your budget.
To read a more in-depth article with even more benchmarks, go here:
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328.html" target="_blank">http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-835...eview,3328.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're going to spend $200 on an AMD processor then why wouldn't you instead spend $200 on the better intel processor? They are the same price, but one is irrefutably better.
It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but
pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.
And most I know seem to be happy with their systems, and that is just from reading info but they have never
installed or tuned windows and therefore I can not accept their results.
This does not concern nvidia, ik prefer NVidia over ATI but I never had problems with ATI.
<!--quoteo(post=2056255:date=Jan 4 2013, 05:57 PM:name=|DFA| Havoc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (|DFA| Havoc @ Jan 4 2013, 05:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056255"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Granted, the 8350 also uses significantly more power and costs roughly the same as a 3570, so there is really no reason not to go Intel at that price point for gaming. Lesser models in the Vishera line may be more attractive to budget users for whom productivity software is also a factor, but otherwise an i3 is likely a better choice.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there an echo in here? :P
I wholeheartedly recommend Intel chips for gaming, as I have already said a couple times, just dispelling some of the nonsensical bluster about AMD CPUs being 'garbage'. They aren't as good, but they're not worthless either.
<!--quoteo(post=2056299:date=Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM:name=duvel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (duvel @ Jan 4 2013, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2056299"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not saying Intel is bad but I tested an i3 this week and it slows down when overheated.
It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but
pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most modern processors will throttle down to avoid permanently damaging the hardware at certain temperature thresholds. If you are reaching that limit, the problem is not with your CPU but your cooling solution.
All i3 chips are dual-cores with hyperthreading to virtualize additional cores for multithreading, a small amount of reading would have told you this up front. Similarly, the AMD chips also share certain resources, so the '8' core 8350 doesn't actually have 8 independent cores.
I wholeheartedly recommend Intel chips for gaming, as I have already said a couple times, just dispelling some of the nonsensical bluster about AMD CPUs being 'garbage'. They aren't as good, but they're not worthless either.
Most modern processors will throttle down to avoid permanently damaging the hardware at certain temperature thresholds. If you are reaching that limit, the problem is not with your CPU but your cooling solution.
All i3 chips are dual-cores with hyperthreading to virtualize additional cores for multithreading, a small amount of reading would have told you this up front. Similarly, the AMD chips also share certain resources, so the '8' core 8350 doesn't actually have 8 independent cores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To note GPU's do this as well. Much more. Unless you are running under liquid your GPU is going to get too hot at full boar.
Just open the excel spread sheet click the A column header to select that whole column and insert a graph, I like the look of a bar graph vice the line graph personally.
I use FRAFS Bench Viewer. <a href="http://sourceforge.net/projects/frafsbenchview/" target="_blank">http://sourceforge.net/projects/frafsbenchview/</a>
It is a quad-core 2.6 that after testing is just a dual-core with HTT that runs on 930mhz when stressed.
I will not argue over what is best here but I like cheaper hardware that is replaceble next year but
pumps raw power this year without slowing down, I just dont thrust intel.
And most I know seem to be happy with their systems, and that is just from reading info but they have never
installed or tuned windows and therefore I can not accept their results.
This does not concern nvidia, ik prefer NVidia over ATI but I never had problems with ATI.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
???
How do you overheat an i3?
Its a locked cpu so you did not do it by overclocking
Only thing I can think of is you ran mayonnaise for thermal compound
Max temps should be in the 50s on a i3 with the stock cooler
Thermal throttling happens at 100c or so
Pentium G6XX and G8XX and IB based are dual core NON HT cpus
i3 is a dual core CPU with HT
i5 is a quad core without HT
i7 is a quad core with HT
G860 is 64$ and outperforms nearly every AMD cpu made(in gaming)
<img src="http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/6/353022/original/average%20perf.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I rather have an AMD cpu that runs 3% slower then an Intel that runs at 70% because it is overheated.
Why do you need better and more expensive hardware if most likely your windows is a rarely maintained mess...
This week I have my computer back and I will upgrade the cpu to a phenomII, and since i'm no longer a gamer
I will save my money and buy me a nice Mercedes-Benz :p