technology The Glorious PC master race thread

[Celli 4,338]

Everyone, AMD's new motto.

I'm surprised they haven't released a 16 core CPU yet.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Gentlemen, I'd like to direct your attention to the following chart:

 

*snip*

 

While consoles are stuck with their piddly four-module eight "core" architecture, we are fortunately given the option of adding additional cores and sockets as we see fit.

 

This linear scaling is evident in the above graph, with performance increasing by as much as nearly 1100% over baseline with 16 cores.

 

1100%. You can think about that number. That's a big number.

 

At first I thought this was a joke, but this might be for realzies.

 

16 cores = 16x one core = 1600% assuming 100% efficiency. 1100% increase in performance would correlate to an efficiency loss of ~30%, which seems about right.

 

 

Are you sure it was a 1080? They do make 720p TVs(and fairly large ones, I've a 720p 32in for my game-room)

 

Super duper sure. I are Regulus and I are can reads product specifications.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Regulus

[Plageius 263]

Besides, I'm sure EA will be a good company again. They just need to quit using on-disc DLC and rushing good games to release. Their practices are mostly what are bad. I mean, they have more original franchises than Activision, and don't make crappy licensed movie games. And NFS is a franchise that I feel is still fun. 

You obviously haven't played the new ones and if you have, you obviously haven't played the old ones. The last NFS game I could stand playing for longer than 10 minutes was The Run, and even then it really wasn't that great. The Crew is way better. Also about "crappy licensed movie games"

[Celli 4,338]

 

 

I though it was Capcom that did all the on-disc DLC crap?

Nope. EA did it too. Mass Effect 3 is an example. 

[Plageius 263]

Gentlemen, I'd like to direct your attention to the following chart:

 

 

While consoles are stuck with their piddly four-module eight "core" architecture, we are fortunately given the option of adding additional cores and sockets as we see fit.

 

This linear scaling is evident in the above graph, with performance increasing by as much as nearly 1100% over baseline with 16 cores.

 

1100%. You can think about that number. That's a big number.

More cores doesn't mean jack if they don't run efficiently, take the FX series where you have 8 cores that somehow manage to only churn out barely the same performance as a 4 core I5.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

More cores doesn't mean jack if they don't run efficiently, take the FX series where you have 8 cores that somehow manage to only churn out barely the same performance as a 4 core I5.

 

...for the same or lower cost of an i5, so it's all good.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Regulus

[Celli 4,338]

You obviously haven't played the new ones and if you have, you obviously haven't played the old ones. The last NFS game I could stand playing for longer than 10 minutes was The Run, and even then it really wasn't that great. The Crew is way better. Also about "crappy licensed movie games"

Well, the last one I played was Rivals, and I had fun with that, but not everyone of them is good, I know. Hot Pursuit was garbage, but the new Most Wanted I loved. I mostly played the old ones, not the first  3, but Underground, UG2, Carbon, Hot Pursuit 2, and the old Most Wanted. The only one I didn't like was Underground 1. I haven't played the Crew. How is it? 

Also, I can't see your picture.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

At first I thought this was a joke, but this might be for realzies.

 

16 cores = 16x one core = 1600% assuming 100% efficiency. 1100% increase in performance would correlate to an efficiency loss of ~30%, which seems about right.

 

Nice, I pulled it off a site discussing optimizing highly scalable code for multiple threads. I imagine something like rendering would scale almost linearly given losses due to scheduling, etc.

 

Because the only other graph was the AMD MOAR CORES comic. And we all know that's too real to be posted here.

[long gone 8,929]

More cores doesn't mean jack if they don't run efficiently, take the FX series where you have 8 cores that somehow manage to only churn out barely the same performance as a 4 core I5.

Actually, a Core i3 beats an FX.

 

Speaking of which, AMD's brought back the original engineer for the K6 to revamp their desktop CPUs, and one of the first things he did was kill off the FX line. While FX processors will be continued to be sold until Zen in 2016, there will be no successor to the FX-43xx/63xx/83xx/9370/9590.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Daring

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Nice, I pulled it off a site discussing optimizing highly scalable code for multiple threads. I imagine something like rendering would scale almost linearly given losses due to scheduling, etc.

 

Of course. That's why GPUs have core counts in the hundreds and thousands.

[Plageius 263]

Well, the last one I played was Rivals, and I had fun with that, but not everyone of them is good, I know. Hot Pursuit was garbage, but the new Most Wanted I loved. I mostly played the old ones, not the first  3, but Underground, UG2, Carbon, Hot Pursuit 2, and the old Most Wanted. The only one I didn't like was Underground 1. 

Also, I can't see your picture.

Rivals was undoubtedly the WORST NFS ever released. Littered with technical bugs, OP Cops, auto-drift physics, I know Ubi gets a horrible rap among these parts but TC is like an old NFS game in every way. Also the image was a theatrical poster for the NFS movie which was the definition of a crappy lisecned game movie. 

Actually, a Core i3 beats an FX.

 

Speaking of which, AMD's brought back the original engineer for the K6 to revamp their desktop CPUs, and one of the first things he did was kill off the FX line. While FX processors will be continued to be sold until Zen in 2016, there will be no successor to the FX-43xx/63xx/83xx/9370/9590.

Where did you get that? I need to send this to my AMD fanboy friend XD

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Of course. That's why GPUs have core counts in the hundreds and thousands.

 

I was referring to 3D rendering on a CPU, but yes, absolutely. I'm not terribly familar with GPU scaling at the HPC level, but I imagine it's pretty decent if some of the top supercomputers in the world are loaded with Teslas.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Lunatic Envy

[long gone 8,929]

Where did you get that? I need to send this to my AMD fanboy friend XD

 It's been going around the LinusTechTips forum, lemme see if I can find it.

[Plageius 263]

...for the same or lower cost of an i5, so it's all good.

The FX Series has been known to bottleneck high end video cards in situations where an I5 would not, for example:

Even the I3 scored better than the 8350 there.

[Celli 4,338]

 

 

Rivals was undoubtedly the WORST NFS ever released. Littered with technical bugs, OP Cops, auto-drift physics, I know Ubi gets a horrible rap among these parts but TC is like an old NFS game in every way. Also the image was a theatrical poster for the NFS movie which was the definition of a crappy lisecned game movie. 

Really? I bought it for PS4 and I never encountered bugs, and the cops didn't feel OP, and the drifting actually felt like you had to manually perform it.

[long gone 8,929]

Never mind then, you found it.

 

I think that another big reason why the FX is bottlenecking high-end GPUs (including AMD's own) is because it doesn't have PCIe 3.0, unlike Intel. Even AMD uses Intel CPUs when testing high-end GPUs now.

 

PCIe 2.0 16x is only as fast as PCIe 3.0 8x.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

The FX Series has been known to bottleneck high end video cards in situations where an I5 would not, for example:

Even the I3 scored better than the 8350 there.

 

Mmm... hmm?

 

The i7 3970X, 2600K, FX-9590, and i3 4330 are all the same. I'm really not sure what's going on here, because there should be a very pronounced difference between the dual and quads, like there is between the Haswells and Haswell-Es.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Never mind then, you found it.

 

I think that another big reason why the FX is bottlenecking high-end GPUs (including AMD's own) is because it doesn't have PCIe 3.0, unlike Intel. Even AMD uses Intel CPUs when testing high-end GPUs now.

 

PCIe 2.0 16x is only as fast as PCIe 3.0 8x.

 

I don't think PCI 2.0 x16 would impact performance too much with current high-end GPUs, but...

 

If someone's got closer to $100 to spend on a CPU, I would likely tell them to buy an FX 8320 or similar over an i3. Yeah, it's true -- the single core IPC is not great, but it's not BAD, certainly good enough to play these games on high settings at a good clip (double cinematic!) and in the event you decide to stream or... I don't know render a review on the latest episode of FIM, the FX would pull away from an i3 pretty handily.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

Never mind then, you found it.

 

I think that another big reason why the FX is bottlenecking high-end GPUs (including AMD's own) is because it doesn't have PCIe 3.0, unlike Intel. Even AMD uses Intel CPUs when testing high-end GPUs now.

 

PCIe 2.0 16x is only as fast as PCIe 3.0 8x.

 

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/1#.VLiG4XvMhTs

 

Apparently the difference isn't much.

 

 

We have put forth a great effort to get to the bottom of the PCIe 2.0 versus PCIe 3.0 debate. We put a lot of time into testing performance and verifying that our data is accurate. Except for a couple of specific scenarios, most of the performance advantage had under PCIe 3.0 was well under 10%. This actually falls in-line with the kind of performance advantages one might expect using n Ivy Bridge CPU clock-for-clock compared to a Sandy Bridge CPU. The IPC can affect performance by as much as 4-7% in favor of Ivy Bridge easily. As you noticed, most of our data when we experienced an improvement on the Ivy Bridge system was in this range of improvements. There were a few specific cases of 11% in The Witcher 2 in one test, and 19% in Batman (for part of the game only) and 14% when we cranked up the settings to unplayable levels in Max Payne 3. For the most part, at the real-world highest playable settings we found playable, all performance advantages were under 10%.

 

With real-world gameplay performance advantages under 10% it doesn't change the actual gameplay experience. It in no way allows us to improve in-game quality settings nor does it give us any advantages over the PCIe 2.0 system. As we've stated previously in this evaluation, the technical performance advantages are "benchmarkable" but not relating to the gameplay experience.

 

It is also very clear from our testing that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 receives an overall higher percentage of improvements with Ivy Bridge than the Radeon HD 7970 does. It is possible that similar to our past CPU frequency testing, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 GPUs are simply more sensitive to CPU clock speed and IPC, especially when you scale these upwards. We've done testing in the past that also shows NVIDIA GPUs are more sensitive to CPU clock speed than AMD GPUs are as you scale those up to dual and triple-GPUs. Therefore, we are not shocked to find that one brand might benefit with a technology more than another. It is an interesting result that we didn't expect when we started testing.

 

So do not fret if you are on a Sandy Bridge PCI Express 2.0 system, you aren't missing out on a bunch of performance compared to an Ivy Bridge PCI Express 3.0 system. Most of our readers will likely benefit from higher CPU overclocks on Sandy Bridge anyway if you are truly pushing the CPU clock and this alone will likely negate any "advantages" from PCIe 3.0 or Ivy Bridge IPC when it comes to real-world gaming scenarios. PCIe 3.0 is a great evolution, one day it may actually support a better gameplay experience compared to PCIe 2.0, but that day is not today.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Regulus

[Plageius 263]

Really? I bought it for PS4 and I never encountered bugs, and the cops didn't feel OP, and the drifting actually felt like you had to manually perform it.

Having played it you can easily perform a drift by a simple brake tap. Anyway I didn't see your question about The Crew so if you liked the old NFS games from the underground era like Most Wanted and Carbon you'll love it. The physics are easibly playable on sport mode with an Xbox pad, the customization is probably the best since the old NFS games including the Forza series, and some of the faction missions are really fun. Only problem is it's online only which I will admit is BS, and the online is kind of dead but you can still find a game in some of the PVP hubs after about 30 secs or so. Buy it on sale is my advice.

Mmm... hmm?

 

The i7 3970X, 2600K, FX-9590, and i3 4330 are all the same. I'm really not sure what's going on here, because there should be a very pronounced difference between the dual and quads, like there is between the Haswells and Haswell-Es.

But you're forgetting the 9590 is wildly inefficient compared to the 4690k. 225W of power is INSANE no matter how you put it. But as you can see in this benchmark, the regular FXes are getting left in the dust by an I3 of all CPU's. 

[Celli 4,338]

Having played it you can easily perform a drift by a simple brake tap. Anyway I didn't see your question about The Crew so if you liked the old NFS games from the underground era like Most Wanted and Carbon you'll love it. The physics are easibly playable on sport mode with an Xbox pad, the customization is probably the best since the old NFS games including the Forza series, and some of the faction missions are really fun. Only problem is it's online only which I will admit is BS, and the online is kind of dead but you can still find a game in some of the PVP hubs after about 30 secs or so. Buy it on sale is my advice.

I was really interested in it. Especially because of the open world being a condensed version of the U.S.

[Plageius 263]

I was really interested in it. Especially because of the open world being a condensed version of the U.S.

Yeah it's cool. Though if you're looking for a TDU successor, you will be sorely dissapointed.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

But you're forgetting the 9590 is wildly inefficient compared to the 4690k. 225W of power is INSANE no matter how you put it. But as you can see in this benchmark, the regular FXes are getting left in the dust by an I3 of all CPU's. 

 

I agree, it 225W is insane.

 

But the question is why? The results shown in that graph don't line up with my understanding and predictions.

[Azure Envy 1,092]

Yeah it's cool. Though if you're looking for a TDU successor, you will be sorely dissapointed.

 

I am sorely disappointed that there isn't a true successor to TDU.

 

That game was awesome.

 

Aside from all the broken things that never got fixed like clubs.

[FoxyCryptid 4,330]

The FX Series has been known to bottleneck high end video cards in situations where an I5 would not, for example:

Even the I3 scored better than the 8350 there.

 

Is that a bottleneck or just a failure on CPU intensive parts?