AMD VS INTEL IN COST PER FRAME RATE (LOTS OF DATA)

[Dabombinable]

War Thunder, World of Warcraft and other MMOs I have tested all ran above 60 FPS on a FX chip and these games should run better in "theory" on a 860K...

Warthunder runs at 60FPS on my QX 6850 at stock.......and I've told you once and I've told you several times, the maximum FPS or even the average aren't everything (or the full picture), you also need the minimum FPS and frametimes.

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

 

PCPartPickerPro9171787, on 03 Sept 2015 - 8:39 PM, said:

I don't think you understand what is going on with the charts, or the methods I used to come to my conclusions. No offence

Listen.

The whole deal with a benchmark, of any sort, is for others to have a chance to replicate the results, easily.

I don't see your point. So you there are 2 groups of people. There people that own 6 CPUs and 6 GPUs, in witch case don't need this graph. Then there people like me that have to make the best guess with the data they have. And the best thing you can do and try to find a test by a reputable site on as close to the task as you will be using comparing as many CPUs and GPUs as possible.

 

 

 

I know that you did your best to AVOID a GPU bottleneck where you simply do not want it.. you are looking to have 100% CPU bottleneck all the time.

I did not try to avoid a GPU bottleneck or a CPU for that matter because that would be an unnecessary assumption. This demonstrates that you do not know were i'm coming from. What I used for the conclusion is the top performing combination charts between the six games. That means if a CPU never makes that charts (Witch is break down by frame rate scales) that means that the the CPU is being outclassed by another class. Conversely, if a CPU is constantly on on the Top Performing charts that that CPU is define comparable.

 

 

 

 

problem with that aproach is that you also make the whole test hard or impossible for others without some 10 different GPUs lying around, to replicate. Your results is exceedingly hard to reproduce.

If we cannot easily reproduce, we cannot verify.

 Again, if you don't 10 different GPUs then the net best thing is use data from a reputable site.

 

 

 

 

Some of the i3 combos also just cost way too much to make sense. At some point, one must just look at ones tests and just see that this wont work...

You do not go buy a ridiculously expensive GPU, and a 70 dollar CPU... you always look at some balance between the two... This is common knowledge.

For one thing, I3 got a relatively good review for its category. The I3 did well for it's category of frame rates. The fact that the I3 didn't test well with the $500 GPU is irreverent that the I3 did well with It's respective category, and demenstates that you don't know what is going on.    

 

 

 

Unfortunatly, your results are too broken up, fragmented. They do not represent actual builds or potential builds, and several important GPU combinations were left out.

Why no GTX 970? it is a hugely popular and widely used GPU.

Why no HD 7970 GHz? Sure its basically a 280X, but then again, drivers DO make a difference.

Before you were mad becausei'm using to many CPUs and GPUs. Now your mad because i'm not using enough  CPUs and GPUs. Make up your mind what you are mad about before you post.

 

 

 

One the CPU side.

Why no FX 6300? If anything, it is one of those FXs that actually make sense to buy.

Why no Phenom IIs? The GTX 770 was in sale during the time you could still buy Phenom IIs. A lot of people still rock their X4 or X6 unlocked Phenoms, which are decent CPUs, even today.

 Why no FX 6300? Why no Phenom IIs? Becasue they were not in the benchmark test I took the data from. If your smart, you can say that the FX 6300 is roughly between the Anthlon and 8350 see that it cost about $100 and say that the FX 6300 is probably going to be a good buy, and do more research. I never said my conclusions were gospel.  

 

 

 

Then there is the wildcard of OC.

Some things simply make a lot more sense if you OC it, but OC costs more due to cooling. How do you plan do account for that?

I'm sorry I didn't consult you before I posted this.

 

 

 

I do not dispute your results as is.

I dispute the test and how you laid it out in the first place. It is simply too fragmented, and DO lack quite a bit of logic behind it. In some cases, it is borderline moronically done in terms of combinations selected. 

 You could depute my conclusions but you can't the data because it is a apples to apples comparison. To be recommend in the conclusion you had win in a a category of frame rates in a within the video game. I does not matter if you lose on 4 categories of frames and win one in a video game. That still means that you will be recommended for that video. This means that if a I5 is paired with a $500 dollar GPU and does poorly in price to performance rota it not affect win it win with the $200 GPU. The I5 still gets recommended for that $200 GPU. Try to go farther than a skin deep look before you criticize somebody eles's work.          

[Nena Trinity]

Warthunder runs at 60FPS on my QX 6850 at stock.......and I've told you once and I've told you several times, the maximum FPS or even the average aren't everything (or the full picture), you also need the minimum FPS and frametimes.

Minimum is 60+... (also do you use the movie settings or ultra?)

[Prysin]

I don't see your point. So you there are 2 groups of people. There people that own 6 CPUs and 6 GPUs, in witch case don't need this graph. Then there people like me that have to make the best guess with the data they have. And the best thing you can do and try to find a test by a reputable site on as close to the task as you will be using comparing as many CPUs and GPUs as possible.

 

I did not try to avoid a GPU bottleneck or a CPU for that matter because that would be an unnecessary assumption. This demonstrates that you do not know were i'm coming from. What I used for the conclusion is the top performing combination charts between the six games. That means if a CPU never makes that charts (Witch is break down by frame rate scales) that means that the the CPU is being outclassed by another class. Conversely, if a CPU is constantly on on the Top Performing charts that that CPU is define comparable.

 

 

 Again, if you don't 10 different GPUs then the net best thing is use data from a reputable site.

 

 

For one thing, I3 got a relatively good review for its category. The I3 did well for it's category of frame rates. The fact that the I3 didn't test well with the $500 GPU is irreverent that the I3 did well with It's respective category, and demenstates that you don't know what is going on.    

 

Before you were mad becausei'm using to many CPUs and GPUs. Now your mad because i'm not using enough  CPUs and GPUs. Make up your mind what you are mad about before you post.

 

 Why no FX 6300? Why no Phenom IIs? Becasue they were not in the benchmark test I took the data from. If your smart, you can say that the FX 6300 is roughly between the Anthlon and 8350 see that it cost about $100 and say that the FX 6300 is probably going to be a good buy, and do more research. I never said my conclusions were gospel.  

 

I'm sorry I didn't consult you before I posted this.

 

 You could depute my conclusions but you can't the data because it is a apples to apples comparison. To be recommend in the conclusion you had win in a a category of frame rates in a within the video game. I does not matter if you lose on 4 categories of frames and win one in a video game. That still means that you will be recommended for that video. This means that if a I5 is paired with a $500 dollar GPU and does poorly in price to performance rota it not affect win it win with the $200 GPU. The I5 still gets recommended for that $200 GPU. Try to go farther than a skin deep look before you criticize somebody eles's work.          

so since you didnt do any of this yourself... you just made it obvious to anyone, that you could, without us knowing, cherry pick the results you wanted.

 

Good job... sorry. You probably did a lot of work doctoring this document together, and really, good job on that. But with this post, you just made your entire comparison a bit more suspicious

[Dabombinable]

Minimum is 60+... (also do you use the movie settings or ultra?)

Ultra of course-I don't work for Ubisoft.

Edit: Oh and I call BS on the minimum FPS.

[Prysin]

Ultra of course-I don't work for Ubisoft.

why would anyone want to work for that company....

 

i mean, when you apply, you basically apply at a position where your job will be do to a shit job....

[Dabombinable]

why would anyone want to work for that company....

 

i mean, when you apply, you basically apply at a position where your job will be do to a shit job....

And dig holes, don't forget the holes.

[Prysin]

And dig holes, don't forget the holes.

Maybe they are all using Bulldozer chips in their workstations

 

Too bad Excavator hasnt been around for desktop... Ubi would really benefit from those CPUs.

[Nena Trinity]

Ultra of course-I don't work for Ubisoft.

Edit: Oh and I call BS on the minimum FPS.

Ground forces it drops to 45 FPS under extreme conditions but that is still 15 FPS over console…

 

Also that you are not able to do something does not mean I cannot do what you cant...  (Linux master race!)

 

Calling me a liar because you are incompetent is just low dude...

[PCPartPickerPro9171787]

 

 

so since you didnt do any of this yourself... you just made it obvious to anyone, that you could, without us knowing, cherry pick the results you wanted.

 

Do you think the original benchmark test was bogus? Because that was the my charts are just reorganizing that data. 

[Prysin]

Do you think the original benchmark test was bogus? Because that was the my charts are just reorganizing that data. 

Nope, but what you did was take a test that was COMPLETELY aimed at something different then what you are using the data for.

 

That test was there to test CPU bottlenecks and how CPUs stack up against eachother in real life games, not just synthetics...

 

So you took data that does not represent good value, or even sensible choice, and doctored the results to match up in price to performance...

 

This is why your test is bullshit.

None of the data used reflects sensible real life choices.

It also does not reflect common issues such as cost of motherboards (which can vary alot depending on what you aim to do with the CPU)