Thanks for being an Ashes of the Singularity Founder. As a Founder, you now have the ability to benchmark your machine to see how powerful it is.
Founders get to help shape the game by playing the alpha now, a founders forum badge, access to the vault...and with the Founder’s Lifetime Edition, you will get all future expansions and DLC.
If you’re not a Founder, it’s not too late to sign up! Become an Ashes of the Singularity Founder here.
i3 4330 beating FX 8370. Is this just a bug or true performance of FX CPUs?
It's hyper-threading versus piledriver most likely. A Haswell i3 clocked at 3.5Ghz is massively more powerful, core to core, than anything AMD can put out. They'd need to break 6Ghz stock to compete with Intel right now, and then HT can give boosts in the range of 30% with high thread counts and well optimized software.
Piledriver has a limitation in it's 2-1 core set up which can result in it effectively being a 4 core CPU, performance wise. Like hyper-threading, it's not two physical cores, likely of particular importance to these benchmarks, it's only one Floating point core. Typically you get about 90% of what it would with two fully discrete cores, but that's for operations that under-utilize shared resources. Operations that utilize those shared resources more than the primary discrete resources will see zero benefit from piledriver architecture, and might even be degraded further.
As a result, the top end of an i3's performance is going to spank the living shit out of an AMD cpu at better than 2-1 where it's weakest, resulting in your effective 4Ghz quad core under performing against a 3.5Ghz dual core. Normally it would be significantly less impressive outside of single thread performance.
I'm wondering where the difference between nvidia and AMD is coming from (Meaning the big perf increase on DX12).
I hope for Nvidia it's not coming from their optimized for directx 11 current architecture. Even if i can't believe they have not been able to deliver optimized drivers.
But the thing which is to me obvious today is that i could go for a 300$ 290X card and get the exact same performance as 980TI .....
My GTX770 does a good job, but if Nvidia does not manage to quickly find a solution i may consider to go for AMD even if Nvidia is providing better drivers.
A very basic question : Can the CPU FPS values be interpreted as "If you get unlimited GPU horsepower, this is the max FPS your cpu could achieve" ?
The i3 is still faster under heavy load. Oh, well, time to buy another cpu and motherboard.
It's hyper-threading versus piledriver most likely. A Haswell i3 clocked at 3.5Ghz is massively more powerful, core to core, than anything AMD can put out. They'd need to break 6Ghz stock to compete with Intel right now, and then HT can give boosts in the range of 30% with high thread counts and well optimized software. Piledriver has a limitation in it's 2-1 core set up which can result in it effectively being a 4 core CPU, performance wise. Like hyper-threading, it's not two physical cores, likely of particular importance to these benchmarks, it's only one Floating point core. Typically you get about 90% of what it would with two fully discrete cores, but that's for operations that under-utilize shared resources. Operations that utilize those shared resources more than the primary discrete resources will see zero benefit from piledriver architecture, and might even be degraded further. As a result, the top end of an i3's performance is going to spank the living shit out of an AMD cpu at better than 2-1 where it's weakest, resulting in your effective 4Ghz quad core under performing against a 3.5Ghz dual core. Normally it would be significantly less impressive outside of single thread performance.
I have i7 ivy brid at home to... but its not mine.
But I did testing on BF4 mantle... and FX 6300 4.5GHZ basically kills i3 at 3.8GHz. Also in GTA V, The wicther 3, Crysis 3... even in GW2(which is MMO)....
Just dont get it how can i3 beat it here - FX 6300 has more FPU or INTEGER power - whats the limit? memory bandwidth?
I still didnt bought this game. But I will.
It seems from the log file, dx12 eliminated my cpu bottlenecks (fx8350), so I don't have to buy another cpu for a while.
Something very interesting i found while testing my 2 different graphic cards (on i7 + 32gigs) :
GTX 770 (4gigs of DRAM)
R9 290X (4gigs of DRAM). I bought it recently because it's reported as outperforming GTX770 by 30% (average).
So i did a test using High settings for benchmark with DX11 & DX12 (1920x1080).
And guess what ?
With DX11 GTX770 absolutly outperforms R9 290X !!!!
With DX12,
GTX770 gets a slight better result than with DX11, but basically same result.
R9 290X outperforms GTX770 as expected, and yes, DX12 results are 2x better than with DX11.
A very interesting observation with DX11 is that DX11 cpu overhead reported for R9 290X is twice higher than for GTX 770.
So one may guess what's the point of this post ... While DX12 seems to be the best possible direction and i really thank Oxyde for having pushed Microsoft to move forward on optimizing the DX API thanks to Mantke, I can't prevent myself from thinking that AMD is really doing a poor stuff at optimizing DX11 drivers.
And while it seems obvious that Nvidia should consider a new architecture optimized for DX12, The current one is absolutly running as expected with very good dx11 drivers.
Since i do not have any other Nvidia card (like GTX980) i can't figure out if Nvidia architecture is limiting DX12 results, but for sure, on DX11 AOTS is likely to run really better on Nvidia than on AMD if AMD does not provide better drivers. It really looks like to me AMD is pushing out DX11. But what about people who will not move to Win 10 ?
Re: Screen Resolution and the BenchmarkI *realize* that the official minimum specs for the alpha include 1080p. I was very happy when the game recently supported 1280x1024 resolution (with 2 new graphics cards, I plan to jump to 1440p soon..).However, on the benchmark results page, it seems that it is only made for 1080p -- it is far to wide to actually fit on my screen.
Sys Specs:
FX 6300
2x R9 280
32GB 1600MHz DDR3
Samsung 840 Pro SSD (OS)Samsung 850 Evo SSD (games)
4x (1280 x 1024) monitors
I have noticed about a 7FPS increase with a Fury X running the benchmark in the Heavy Results when going from DX11 to DX12. I seem to have gotten that increase due to AMDs newest BETA driver that optimizes DX12 performance in AotS. Anyone else using these drivers notice a big increase compared to the last ones?
I can't get it to run in DX12 mode at all. All I get is a black screen or a bunch of gibberish and stuff on the screen.
My specs.
Windows 10
I7 quad core 3.8 overclocked at 4.2
2 x GTX 980 in SLI
16 gigs of RAM.
I exceed the specs by a fair amount.
I can run it fine in DX11. However, I really wanted to benchmark my system with DX12. All my drivers are current.
Any thoughts?
Nvidia user chek http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-will-fully-implement-async-compute-via-driver-support.html
No ideas?
hi tatsujb
lilkinsly try unistall your driver with thia tool http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/display-driver-uninstaller-download.html
when Nvidia/AMD says clean install. its NOT a real clean install!!! you need to be in windows safe mode to do that.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
