Jump to content
red1776

But it can't be....

Recommended Posts

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

 

At resolutions that normal people use...you don't need a GTX690 lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

post-73619-0-30169700-1358247309_thumb.jpg

post-73619-0-71964300-1358247333_thumb.jpg

 

I have news for you my young friend at 1680 x 1050 the CPU does matter, thats why they run it at that resolution and its no coincidence that the entire top 30 is all 3770,3930,3960's....well almost all.

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

post-73619-0-69996600-1358247604_thumb.jpg

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

 

1) I wasn't making an AMD vs Intel statement, I was showing my standing in the top 30

2) I noticed that after you assumed I was running three screens for the test, and I showed you that it was run at 1680 x 1050 all of a sudden that fact has been glossed over or deemed no longer important

3) Don't give me crap about these benchmarks, when it suited you, they were all that mattered, care to go bgack in the logs?, AI am sure I can catch you stating how incredibly important they are and "a true test"

4) So what about the resolution thing you were incorrect about??

5) You remind me of AL Gore, Recount them until you get the result you want

...keep counting baby.

 

 

 

 

That score is at what CPU clock?

 

The same as the top guys in the board 5.0,5.1,5.2GHz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

 

1) I wasn't making an AMD vs Intel statement, I was showing my standing in the top 30

2) I noticed that after you assumed I was running three screens for the test, and I showed you that it was run at 1680 x 1050 all of a sudden that fact has been glossed over or deemed no longer important

3) Don't give me crap about these benchmarks, when it suited you, they were all that mattered, care to go bgack in the logs?, AI am sure I can catch you stating how incredibly important they are and "a true test"

4) So what about the resolution thing you were incorrect about??

5) You remind me of AL Gore, Recount them until you get the result you want

...keep counting baby.

 

 

1.) Oh really ? Because the way I understood was that this thread was "a bit of a jab for all the crap I take for my affinity for AMD".

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

4.) At multi screens I can imagine Intel and AMD being close since the CPU doesn't play much part in gaming at such high res

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

 

1) I wasn't making an AMD vs Intel statement, I was showing my standing in the top 30

2) I noticed that after you assumed I was running three screens for the test, and I showed you that it was run at 1680 x 1050 all of a sudden that fact has been glossed over or deemed no longer important

3) Don't give me crap about these benchmarks, when it suited you, they were all that mattered, care to go bgack in the logs?, AI am sure I can catch you stating how incredibly important they are and "a true test"

4) So what about the resolution thing you were incorrect about??

5) You remind me of AL Gore, Recount them until you get the result you want

...keep counting baby.

 

 

1.) Oh really ? Because the way I understood was that this thread was "a bit of a jab for all the crap I take for my affinity for AMD".

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

4.) At multi screens I can imagine Intel and AMD being close since the CPU doesn't play much part in gaming at such high res

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

 

BS, there is a reason that the entire list is exclusively highly overclocked  Intel 3770,3960, and 3930's.

A bit of a jab yes, but you are contradicting yourself to the extreme.

Who the hell said It was exclusively a CPU test? it's Heaven 3.0...period ......29 high buck Intels....and my 8350 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys sure are sensitive about your amd vs intel haha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

 

1) I wasn't making an AMD vs Intel statement, I was showing my standing in the top 30

2) I noticed that after you assumed I was running three screens for the test, and I showed you that it was run at 1680 x 1050 all of a sudden that fact has been glossed over or deemed no longer important

3) Don't give me crap about these benchmarks, when it suited you, they were all that mattered, care to go bgack in the logs?, AI am sure I can catch you stating how incredibly important they are and "a true test"

4) So what about the resolution thing you were incorrect about??

5) You remind me of AL Gore, Recount them until you get the result you want

...keep counting baby.

 

 

1.) Oh really ? Because the way I understood was that this thread was "a bit of a jab for all the crap I take for my affinity for AMD".

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

4.) At multi screens I can imagine Intel and AMD being close since the CPU doesn't play much part in gaming at such high res

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

 

BS, there is a reason that the entire list is exclusively highly overclocked  Intel 3770,3960, and 3930's.

 

 

Yes because usually when people buy $2000 worth of graphics cards they don't usually skimp on costs when buying a CPU :teehee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

 

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

 

 

 

Kinda surprised this hasn't been posted yet, but I'd like to direct your attention to OCC's own review of the FX-8350 done by red1776.

 

In "real world" GAMING scenarios, there is negligible difference between the AMD FX-8350 and Intel i7 3960X.

 

Games are increasingly GPU-intensive, which makes them increasingly GPU-oriented, just like the Heaven benchmark. While it's not a solid CPU benchmark, i think it's adequate enough to be considered a gaming scenario benchmark.

 

 

However, I would be interested in seeing benchies between the two with that Quad-fire 7970 setup, as opposed to the review's single 7970.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You guys sure are sensitive about your amd vs intel haha.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahaha seriously Nyt? You reckon there would be 30-50% performance drops.....

 

Well now I want to see cryo and red go head to head in whatever you choose then. High end Intel and and CPUs going head to head with quad fire and quadsli facing off. I want to see the 50% differences.

 

At resolutions that normal people use (around 1080p) there are great undeniable differences between Intel and AMD.

These are all on a GTX690 :

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-17.png

http://www.guru3d.com/miraserver/images/2012/gtx690/Untitled-33.png

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/6

 

3 screens seem to be at such a high resolution that AMD doesn't seem too negatively affected.

 

At around 1920x1080 with an enthusiast card/cards, I wouldn't touch AMD with a 10 foot pole

Did you Bother to look at the resolutions the top 30 was run at??

Your 10 foot pole just shriveled up.

Christ you just can't stand it can ya NYT?

 

attachicon.gifnytsanidiot.JPG

attachicon.gifnytsan idiot.JPG

 

If on the other hand you would like to saee some 5760 x 1080 action, here was a challenge one of the 3960 quad guys threw down.

 

attachicon.gifheavenkarl.JPG

 

(he hasn't spoken to me since)

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about gaming which actually uses the CPU effectively and not a purely GPU orientated benchmark.

Using a GPU orientated benchmark to substanciate your AMD cpu vs Intel cpu argument isn't very logical

 

1) I wasn't making an AMD vs Intel statement, I was showing my standing in the top 30

2) I noticed that after you assumed I was running three screens for the test, and I showed you that it was run at 1680 x 1050 all of a sudden that fact has been glossed over or deemed no longer important

3) Don't give me crap about these benchmarks, when it suited you, they were all that mattered, care to go bgack in the logs?, AI am sure I can catch you stating how incredibly important they are and "a true test"

4) So what about the resolution thing you were incorrect about??

5) You remind me of AL Gore, Recount them until you get the result you want

...keep counting baby.

 

 

1.) Oh really ? Because the way I understood was that this thread was "a bit of a jab for all the crap I take for my affinity for AMD".

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

4.) At multi screens I can imagine Intel and AMD being close since the CPU doesn't play much part in gaming at such high res

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

 

BS, there is a reason that the entire list is exclusively highly overclocked  Intel 3770,3960, and 3930's.

 

 

Yes because usually when people buy $2000 worth of graphics cards they don't usually skimp on costs when buying a CPU :teehee:

 

My point exactly...I didn't skimp...you overpaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2.) Not important as I am stating that AMD is not comparable in GAMING at around 1080p. I already stated Heaven is a GPU-orientated benchmark and not a good test for CPUs.

3.) As a true test of GPU power yes, using Heaven to compare CPUs is idiotic.

 

 

All I'm trying to say is that if you compared yours to an identical GPU setup on Intel at around 1080p in GAMING tests then it would be quite a different outcome so don't use a GPU-orientated benchmark to try and justify your AMD purchase.

 

Still nice scores :)

 

 

 

Kinda surprised this hasn't been posted yet, but I'd like to direct your attention to OCC's own review of the FX-8350 done by red1776.

 

In "real world" GAMING scenarios, there is negligible difference between the AMD FX-8350 and Intel i7 3960X.

 

Games are increasingly GPU-intensive, which makes them increasingly GPU-oriented, just like the Heaven benchmark. While it's not a solid CPU benchmark, i think it's adequate enough to be considered a gaming scenario benchmark.

 

 

However, I would be interested in seeing benchies between the two with that Quad-fire 7970 setup, as opposed to the review's single 7970.

 

 

 

 

 

Jenova69 Said:

Posted Today, 07:26 AM

 

You guys sure are sensitive about your amd vs intel haha.

 

 

 

I do  a little bit. As an actual enthusiast I hear just plain moronic things said about AMD by people who heard it from a a friend of a friend who's brothers dog whispered in their ear.

But as this is my thread, and you asked...here you go.

In 2007 when Crysis came out and they started offering those $800 "crysis" machines that only told you in the small print that they would play the game on 'medium settings' I bet a buddy that I could put together an AMD machine that would perform much better for less...and I did. Since then I have built a quadfire machine every year since 2008 (since the first CC driver set that would recognize four cards CCC 8.3)

 

48484c49_Crysis_Crusher_Quad.jpeg         Crysis Crusher 2008

 

 

 

5b9b64ac_Crysis_2_Crysis_Crusher_II.jpeg       Power Station 2009

 

 

 

a8978629dscn3070.jpg     Chernobyl 2010 

 

 

 

70ae67f6_6950x42.jpeg     Holodeck I 2011

 

 

94c8f23aholodekquad.jpg      2.2 kW Holodeck IV 2012

 

 

I enjoy building machines that others think are not suppose to be able to do what they do. For example.

When I built 'Holodeck 2.2 kW' first they said that a mere two 7970's would bottleneck the FX-8350. When It didn't, then all of a sudden that false statement was not important anymore. 

Then they saids it would take a 3770.3960 etc etc to feed quad 7970's , then when that turned out not to be true, all of a sudden that point was no longer important and conveniently forgotten.

Then you got the claptrap about "yeah but he is using a GPU bound three screen resolution"...until I pointed out that the top 30 was being run at a not so GPU bound 1680 x 1050, all of a sudden that assertion seemed to evaporate without explanation. So either the FX 8350 chokes on 4 x 7970's ...or it doesn't, They can'y have it both ways.

Here is Metro 2033 (a game that uses two cores at best) using about 12% CPU and driving 100% GPU use on all four @ 1080P

 

post-73619-0-10186000-1358267327_thumb.jpg

 

And here is Battlefield 3, a multi core game using 38% CPU and driving all four 7970 @ 100% @ 1080p

post-73619-0-49558600-1358268080_thumb.jpg

 

I enjoy enjoy building machines like this and making them run with the more expensive counterparts.

See the $2000 worth of GPU's in the Holodeck 2.2kW?, the $1300 worth in the Holodeck I? etc

If I wanted a 3770K, I would buy a 3770. But it's OK , I enjoy the battle. 

...Thanks for listening :)

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×