fatfinguh

Team, I notice the unbelievable focus on the servers at LTT. Is that absolutely necessary? 40GBS?! I watched a video today where 10GBS wasn't being maxed out. (note - the Author/Publisher/Creator himself believed Team Linus is absolutely justified) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vUAHrhqNKs&lc=Ugzd5C3rBIox8aHxlmx4AaABAg.9Oum1_-WE4J9OuutQqCvqC Respectfully, The last idiot still using an FX-8370

i checked the bios, i'm running the CPU at 40c. I forgot the cool n quiet function. I'm already running the power options at high performance.

Hey guys, I have this_ CPUAMD FX-8370 MotherboardASUS M5A97 LE AMD970A AM3+ USB3 SATA 3 MB RAM8gb 1600 generic GPUR9 280 CaseThermaltake Core V31 Storage240GB KINGSTON V300 SERIES SSD + WD 1 TB CAVIAR BLUE PSUCORSAIR CS650M 80PLUS 650W CSM SERIES CoolingENERMAX ETS-T40-TB BLACK For some reason, I can't get the CPU up to 4.0 ghz. It is always around 3.92ghz according to my task manager. I went to Silver Bench http://silver.urih.com/ and managed to get it to 4.04ghz on a standard bench mark. Supposedly, I should be able to turbo to 4.3ghz. What is going wrong? What should I do?

Looks like a comeback is looming.

Ultimately, the draw calls on the FX line will be dramatically enhanced when DX 12 is fully implemented on the software. This will directly result in less/no bottlenecking in all applicable games.

Why do you people keep posting 1080p metrics? Splitting tasks into 16 threads is less effective than 8 threads at 4k. That's where this article was meant to drive everyone.

I've got a 2820QM 2.3ghz 8mb cache

All, I have a GT 540m 2GB DDR3 card in my XPS 15. How much better or worse is it than a 9800GTX+ 512MB?

That's what this article is meant to question. If direct X 12 will ultimately result in more draw calls to the FX series line, and 4k gaming is not fully dependent on CPUs, then why not? Will DX 12 close the gap between FX and the 4790k? According to AMD, it will. At the same time, the 5690x will get a huge bump as well. Linus did a video in December about 4K gaming with and AMD rig and an R285. Based on the most popular games at the time, it wasn't beyond reach.

I'll tell all of you that these tests are highly conceivable. It's not about single threaded performance. It's about the fact that games under DirectX 11 don't take advantage of multi core processors; *Part* of the equation which we are clearly failing to address. This is partly why (yes, not much) the Duel core Pentium G3258 and the beefy quad core 4790k performs so effectively with this current generation of games. *Over obsessing about single-threaded tasks. That's what drew me toward this article. If tasks/instructions can't be parsed, then hardware is naturally sitting idle. If hardware is sitting idle, then we have yet to create software to take advantage of it. Look back to when 64 bit CPUs first hit the home PC market. How many programs were available to take advantage of it? How many years did we wait until the technology was fully employed? We have this obsession with getting the best at all times and ignoring the receipt we pay for them. I bought an XPS 15 (L502x) with an I7 2820QM in 2011. Was the extra cache worth the extra cash? These days I'm thinking no and it was a major family decision to pay extra for it. I'm really not sold on how well I did or didn't future proof my office solution that could casually play games (The Geforce GT 540 quickly shamed me.). If this article is true, how many people (mate_mate91, valdyrgramr) might be feeling some buyer's remorse? Conclusion, we don't all live in the upper third of our communities while playing PC games. Price per performance matters. I would've stuck with consoles if I didn't carefully consider it this time. just like counting the gigabytes on your video card, megahertz on your GPU, DDR3/5, NM or a manufacturing process, it isn't always that simple to dismiss AMD because it came out with this idea in 2011 doesn't mean it's worthless or noncompetitive today. Let's reconvene this conversation when the software catches up to DX 12. You'll see in the video some of AMD's cores are doing nothing.

INTEL TEST SETUP MOTHERBOARD: ASRock X99 OC Formula CPU: Intel Core i7 5960X MEMORY: 16GB Crucial Ballistix Elite DDR4-2666 AMD TEST SETUP MOTHERBOARD: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 CPU: AMD FX-8370 MEMORY: 16GB ADATA XPG DDR3-2133 SHARED COMPONETS PC CHASSIS: Thermaltake Core V51 CPU COOLER: DeepCool Captain 360 POWER SUPPLY: DeepCool Quanta DQ1250 GRAPHICS CARD 1: EVGA SSC GTX 960 2GB GRAPHICS CARD 2: 2x ASUS STRIX GTX 970 4GB STORAGE: ADATA 1TB Premiere Pro SSD

Comrades, I got these from Donny Stanley at TechnologyX. I think this is a wonderful article and believe we over-obsess about single thread performance. Doesn't that somewhat defeat the concept or purpose of multi-core technology. So one thousand dollars vs. two hundred dollars gets you . . . __? As a middle class guy who maybe one day gets lucky on a scratch ticket, I'd expect at least a 100% performance increase. http://www.technologyx.com/featured/amd-vs-intel-our-8-core-cpu-gaming-performance-showdown/4/ Luke "Well these scores turned out. . . pretty much how I . . . wait. . . no!" Linus "Whaat?" *technical difficulties* I actually want to thank Linus for helping me make the decision to cheap out with this processor after watching his bottlenecking guide. Looking forward to DX 12. * I did in fact, find this article linked on AMD's Facebook. *Big shout out to Sintezza for freaking out. “Starting off our 4K benchmarks, we can see that Crysis 3 plays nearly the same on all configurations with a slightly worse frame time on our 5960X. However, once overclocked our FX-8370 delivers the best experience, never dropping below 30 FPS in terms of frame time variance.” "Above we can see that the FX-8370 is about 10% faster in terms of average FPS at both stock and while overclocked. Frame time variance is also much better although both CPUs do drop below 30 FPS, which can lead to some noticeable stutter. Still, the FX-8370 does deliver a smoother experience overall." "Tomb Raider is a title that is definitely not very CPU-bound, and here it shows once again. Performance differences are less than 1% in all instances, except for our stock AMD configuration which displays a slightly lower drop in frame time. Still, all configurations played the game fairly smoothly." "Very interesting results. We can see that in terms of average FPS the 5960X outpaces the AMD chip by at least 5% (about 3-4 FPS). However, looking at our frame time variance it is much worse, showing what would be a fairly sutter-y experience. This is exactly the reason these metrics are so important as they can reveal hidden performance issues."