• Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO
    275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776710]hiding it by giving statistics numerous times.[/QUOTE] Run the benchmark with these settings and tell me the results, then I'll be happy: [img]http://puu.sh/30OHK[/img]
[QUOTE=paul simon;40776720]Run the benchmark with these settings and tell me the results, then I'll be happy: [img]http://puu.sh/30OHK[/img][/QUOTE] did you not see the screenshot I posted? by the way, if you're playing with SSAA on, you're making a horrible mistake.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776764]did you not see the screenshot I posted? by the way, if you're playing with SSAA on, you're making a horrible mistake.[/QUOTE] SSAA is the best form of AA you can get. just cause its got a performance hit doesn't mean its stupid to use it.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776764]did you not see the screenshot I posted? by the way, if you're playing with SSAA on, you're making a horrible mistake.[/QUOTE] I'm playing with these settings yeah. Also I saw your screenshot, but I'm sure you can get it running somehow.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;40776804]SSAA is the best form of AA you can get. just cause its got a performance hit doesn't mean its stupid to use it.[/QUOTE] in last light it doesn't look any different than just using an SMAA injector and it also reduces your framerate to less than half (for me it was 90 to 11). the game doesn't really look much different with no AA at all. it always looks slightly aliased, even with SSAA on. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;40776820]I'm playing with these settings yeah. Also I saw your screenshot, but I'm sure you can get it running somehow.[/QUOTE] well that would explain a lot. like I said before, I'm playing with max settings but I'm using SMAA and CSAA instead of SSAA. if I was using SSAA I would have single digit framerates.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776834]in last light it doesn't look any different than just using an SMAA injector and it also reduces your framerate to less than half (for me it was 90 to 11). the game doesn't really look much different with no AA at all. it always looks slightly aliased, even with SSAA on. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] well that would explain a lot. like I said before, I'm playing with max settings but I'm using SMAA and CSAA instead of SSAA. if I was using SSAA I would have single digit framerates.[/QUOTE] Well jeez let's do the benchmark without AA then :v: if you can get it working
[QUOTE=paul simon;40776873]Well jeez let's do the benchmark without AA then :v: if you can get it working[/QUOTE] I googled the problem but there's no relevant results.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776911]I googled the problem but there's no relevant results.[/QUOTE] Guess there's no way to reliably compare then.
[QUOTE=paul simon;40776926]Guess there's no way to reliably compare then.[/QUOTE] if you turn off SSAA and V-sync you'll probably get the same framerates as me, plus an extra 10-15 maybe.
Here is everyone showing their titans and teen titans while I'm here with a coreduo and a 9600gt... :v:
560 for life whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
459. I've never seen so many funnies.
So we start in a thread about XB1 and PS4 being "Better" than a PC. And now we're on a debate about how much AMD sucks?
[QUOTE=dass;40777013]Here is everyone showing their titans and teen titans while I'm here with a coreduo and a 9600gt... :v:[/QUOTE] That actually is my computer. :( Games look a bit better than the 360/PS3.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776524]here is me attempting to run the benchmark and getting a black screen for the second time: [/QUOTE] It black screened for me initially. I just let it go for a couple minutes and it started responding. -snip- [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/box.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Kaabii;40779381]It black screened for me initially. I just let it go for a couple minutes and it started responding. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] Oh and it's probably the fact that you don't [i]own[/i] Metro Last Light. I'd imagine pirate copies wouldn't come with a benchmark exe crack even if it needed it. [img]http://i.imgur.com/VIiK0er.png[/img][/QUOTE] uuh, I bought it on the official website because 2033 had compatibility issues with steam and I didn't want to get fucked over if it happened again. edit: you gave me an idea though, I'm going to see if there's any pirate versions of the benchmark. maybe that'll work
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40780240]uuh, I bought it on the official website because 2033 had compatibility issues with steam and I didn't want to get fucked over if it happened again. edit: you gave me an idea though, I'm going to see if there's any pirate versions of the benchmark. maybe that'll work[/QUOTE] Sorry, I thought Metro Last Light was a steam mandatory game since any copies you buy from Amazon, GMG, etc all have the requirement of a steam account. But if it's on Origin I guess not.
2033 had benchmark issues? I have the Steam version and the benchmark works fine for me
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;40780379]2033 had benchmark issues? I have the Steam version and the benchmark works fine for me[/QUOTE] I don't know if you're referring to what I said but if you are you misread it.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40780438]I don't know if you're referring to what I said but if you are you misread it.[/QUOTE] Oh I probably did, my mistake
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776455]well that's great for AMD GPU users, but that was not the case when I had one. and again, I'm not here to make any claims against AMD, I'm just saying when I had a 5770 it was awful and I did not hesitate to tell people that, so this person's bargain bin logic of ''oh you're just mad because you have one'' is completely invalid, and extremely obnoxious. to be honest, your theory about purposely cutting FPS could be true. it's an Nvidia sponsored game and neither company is beyond paying developers to try to make their competitor look bad. it could be that, or it could just be that they made a mistake and didn't realize it so they corrected it post launch.[/QUOTE] I didn't even argue that you have some sort of buyer's remorse, I'm just saying you're wrong. You don't need to look deeper into it than that. The Piledriver generation is actually kinda okay performance-wise considering the price point. The power requirements and subsequent heat and noise issues are drawbacks, though, and that's pretty much why I'd go Intel at medium to high-end gaming build. Low-end kinda depends on what you want to do.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40781958]I didn't even argue that you have some sort of buyer's remorse, I'm just saying you're wrong. You don't need to look deeper into it than that. The Piledriver generation is actually kinda okay performance-wise considering the price point. The power requirements and subsequent heat and noise issues are drawbacks, though, and that's pretty much why I'd go Intel at medium to high-end gaming build. Low-end kinda depends on what you want to do.[/QUOTE] have you actually had piledriver a CPU? I have an 8 core, 3.6 GHz CPU with a 670 and they run absolutely fine with a 500w PSU so I don't know what power requirements you're talking about. my cooler is a piece of shit and the only time I ever have heat problems is when I go 4 months without cleaning the dust out of my computer, and that's not that bad considering the dust trap of a house I live in. and I'm not really having any issues with noise, I can hear it kick in when I'm playing a game, but it's not loud enough to notice unless I'm listening for it. it really seems like your opinion is based off of a lot of misinformation.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40782037]have you actually had piledriver a CPU? I have an 8 core, 3.6 GHz CPU with a 670 and they run absolutely fine with a 500w PSU so I don't know what power requirements you're talking about. my cooler is a piece of shit and the only time I ever have heat problems is when I go 4 months without cleaning the dust out of my computer, and that's not that bad considering the dust trap of a house I live in. and I'm not really having any issues with noise, I can hear it kick in when I'm playing a game, but it's not loud enough to notice unless I'm listening for it. it really seems like your opinion is based off of a lot of misinformation.[/QUOTE] Uhhmm.. What misinformation? Even AMD's product page shows that the FX-8350 has a higher TDP than Intel counter-parts. Power requirements was a wrong word (it doesn't really matter at this point, so "consumption" would probably be more fitting), but you get the point. And just take a look at this review: [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/4.html[/url] As you can see, the 8350 uses almost twice as much power as the i5 3570K, and still considerably more than the i7 3770K. If you think I picked a biased review or something, just look it up yourself - all sites will show the same. And if you're using the same cooler for two CPUs, it only takes a bit of logic to conclude that the CPU with the higher power draw will either be hotter, be noisier or a mix. Either way it'll heat up the ambient temperature in the case, which means other components will also be noisier or hotter.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40782180]Uhhmm.. What misinformation? Even AMD's product page shows that the FX-8350 has a higher TDP than Intel counter-parts. Power requirements was a wrong word (it doesn't really matter at this point, so "consumption" would probably be more fitting), but you get the point. And just take a look at this review: [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/FX-8350_Piledriver_Review/4.html[/url] As you can see, the 8350 uses almost twice as much power as the i5 3570K, and still considerably more than the i7 3770K. If you think I picked a biased review or something, just look it up yourself - all sites will show the same. And if you're using the same cooler for two CPUs, it only takes a bit of logic to conclude that the CPU with the higher power draw will either be hotter, be noisier or a mix. Either way it'll heat up the ambient temperature in the case, which means other components will also be noisier or hotter.[/QUOTE] despite any statistics, the piledriver series has better performance in some games than i7s. some of them are even intel/amd sponsored games. when developers optimize their games for 8 cores, the piledriver series is either almost exactly as good, the same, or better than intel CPUs. and a vast majority of future games are going to make use of 8 cores because of the next gen consoles.
Nope. Even in seriously multithreaded apps and benchmarks the 8 threads on an i7 typically outpower the 8 integer units and 4 FPUs on an FX chip. [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/[/url] You're so deluded I don't even know what to say anymore. Trying to reason with you is useless because you just attribute it to inaccurate testing and give some unverifiable anecdote(i.e. not real evidence) and claim that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40782265]despite any statistics, the piledriver series has better performance in some games than i7s. some of them are even intel/amd sponsored games. when developers optimize their games for 8 cores, the piledriver series is either almost exactly as good, the same, or better than intel CPUs. and a vast majority of future games are going to make use of 8 cores because of the next gen consoles.[/QUOTE] Please show me benchmarks of these games. You can't just say "there's a lot of games where they do better or equally well" and then even have the "despite any statistics" in front of that. Part of the problem is that developers need to optimize for the Piledriver architecture in order to get the full potential. That's just not how the world works, and developers generally don't want to use loads of time optimizing for a processor group that has a fairly small marketshare. And even then the Piledriver architecture often falls short, along with higher power requirements.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40782386]Please show me benchmarks of these games. You can't just say "there's a lot of games where they do better or equally well" and then even have the "despite any statistics" in front of that. Part of the problem is that developers need to optimize for the Piledriver architecture in order to get the full potential. That's just not how the world works, and developers generally don't want to use loads of time optimizing for a processor group that has a fairly small marketshare. And even then the Piledriver architecture often falls short, along with higher power requirements.[/QUOTE] well I told you to watch tek syndicate's videos about them, but you just responded with ''HAHA TEK SYNDICATE''. if you don't think they're reliable then that's up to you but I disagree. and I doubt that they're wrong in their assessment just from talking to people with i7s on forums about their performance. I know that right now i7s are better to have, I know that right now intel is ahead of AMD, and I know that a majority of games have better performance on i7s, but what I've been trying to say is the fx series is not bad at all and as time has passed their performance has increased significantly due to better optimization on both games and on windows itself. so with the combination of that and future iterations on the design, they could eventually surpass intel. [editline]25th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kaabii;40782337]Nope. Even in seriously multithreaded apps and benchmarks the 8 threads on an i7 typically outpower the 8 integer units and 4 FPUs on an FX chip. [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/[/url] You're so deluded I don't even know what to say anymore. Trying to reason with you is useless because you just attribute it to inaccurate testing and give some unverifiable anecdote(i.e. not real evidence) and claim that you're right and everyone else is wrong.[/QUOTE] I'm deluded for saying that fx series has better performance in some games? I didn't say a lot of games, there's not that many, but there ARE a few. I'm telling you what my experience has been with the 8150, and I've pointed out a source (considered by many in the hardware community to be very reliable) to the claim that there has been misconceptions about the fx series. edit: if you're actually interested in a source [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu8Sekdb-IE[/url]
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;40776455]well that's great for AMD GPU users, but that was not the case when I had one. and again, I'm not here to make any claims against AMD, [B]I'm just saying when I had a 5770 it was awful[/B] and I did not hesitate to tell people that, so this person's bargain bin logic of ''oh you're just mad because you have one'' is completely invalid, and extremely obnoxious. to be honest, your theory about purposely cutting FPS could be true. it's an Nvidia sponsored game and neither company is beyond paying developers to try to make their competitor look bad. it could be that, or it could just be that they made a mistake and didn't realize it so they corrected it post launch.[/QUOTE] I have had a 5770 for the past three years and it served me well. I don't know why it was "so awful" and why you provide a lack of explanation as to why it was so but I can only guess that you were stupid with it by damaging it or didn't perform like the higher end cards (which would be your fault for blindly buying products without reading info).
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;40783488]I have had a 5770 for the past three years and it served me well. I don't know why it was "so awful" and why you provide a lack of explanation as to why it was so but I can only guess that you were stupid with it by damaging it or didn't perform like the higher end cards.[/QUOTE] I have pretty high standards with this sort of stuff. still, I hated that thing so much. I didn't provide an explanation because I was only mentioning it in passing to show that when I buy something and end up hating it I don't go around pretending it's the best thing ever invented.
2 years after the PS4 and XBOX One is released, a more powerful Gaming PC will over take them. By then, their hardware would technically be obsolete.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.