For a bulldozer at almost 5ghz, to compare it to any other Amd chip and say “they are up to it” is a bit laughable. Also, 25 fps in big zergs is not good for a chip thats almost oc to 5 ghz. My 3930k gets 45 at the lowest in big zergs at even 4.5ghz. Also what the hell is “smooth as butter?” 60-70fps? Thats horrible. My intel at the same speed as your amd gets me average 100 fps. 60 in big DEs and in lions arch with everything set at max and supersampling. Come now… 25 fps with an amd at almost 5ghz and you think this is bragging on Amd chips? Lol. Its not buddy.
You should learn to realize that these cpu’s are meant to be overclocked.And also,i can run this cpu at 4.4 and get about the same fps,i just like to oc.And what you find laughable is something i dont care much about.Btw,i also dont care what your fps is ,since i didnt ask for it.You are the one bragging,i wasn’t.I was merely replying to someone that the latest Amd cpu’s are very capable of running this game without any major fps problems.Reading is hard,isn’t it ?
My point was that you cant compare a 4.8ghz oc bulldozer to other amd chips. My second point was that amd still sucks compared to intel at the same speed. Intel nets double the amds fps. Unless everybody who has amd is going to oc to 4.8ghz, the game isnt playable on amd.
My point was that you cant compare a 4.8ghz oc bulldozer to other amd chips. My second point was that amd still sucks compared to intel at the same speed. Intel nets double the amds fps. Unless everybody who has amd is going to oc to 4.8ghz, the game isnt playable on amd.
Drop it already,this thread is about AMD cpu’s not a specific line of AMD’s like phenoms only.I simply made a reply that AMD cpu’s ( in My specific case the fx 8120,is very capable of running the game without major fps problems ).Since i dont have 20 cpu’s i cannot comment for all amd cpu’s ( pretty obvious ).besides that my girls pc with a 965BE,can run this game perfectly fine all maxed out.
PS:I never said i dont want a reply from someone else when replying in a thread.Learn to ..read for god’s sake.
No. This thread is about asking devs to optimize a game for a minority of people on amd cpus. Btw, asking devs to optimize performance on amd cpus is like asking devs to optimize the game to run on a graphing calculator. The point being amd cpus dont have the power to play the game at a decent fps without being oc’d to 5ghz.
I poped into WvWvW last night and found a group of about 30 players bashing at a gate. My GPU usage went ‘down’ to about 60% ..my cpu usuage was around ~20% (note i have a 6core 12 thread 3930k so for GW2 20-25% is theoreticaly the zone for bottlenecking)
Anyway my FPS droped to 50. Now i know WvWvW fights can be double that in size ..doesnt mean i will half my fps but i would expect around 30fps in massive fights asuming my GPU, which was at 60%, doesnt max out ..its only a 560ti afterall.
Still points to GW2 have some optimization issues. .but thats to be expected i guess.
3930k 4.6ghz | NH-D14 Cooler | P9x79 Pro MB | 16gb 1866mhz G.Skill | 128gb SSD + 2×500gb HDD
EVGA GTX 780 Classified w/ EK block | XSPC D5 Photon 270 Res/Pump | NexXxos Monsta 240 Rad
CM Storm Stryker case | Seasonic 1000W PSU | Asux Xonar D2X & Logitech Z5500 Sound system |
SolarNova Stop Comparing a CPU ( 3930K ) which cost roughly 500-800$ depending on country to AMD CPU’s which cost 100-250$.
Ofcourse youll get better performance on 4,5GHZ CPU which costed 600$ rather then FX 8150 which costs like 170$ ? it’s amazing CPU for it’s price. And Im happy for You that you got that much money to spend it for a CPU only but some ppl have that 600-700$ buget for whole PC.
So before U post anything. start comparing CPUs by thier price.
While FX 4100/8150 are great in 120-170$ buget they beat i3 3100/3220 by mile and are 10-15 fps behind I5 2500k which costs around 250$. for that 80$ some ppl can get AMD 3 MB or more memory or add it to a GPU.
Also seriously Everytime I see post “Your 70 FPS is kitten I got 120” I wanna take knife out of my pocket and stabb myself.
Your eyes See maximum difference at 55-60 FPS You won’t notice more untill your some kind of freak with super eye sight.
But Hey I get You. You always have to brag about your pc and fps you get. we will put u onto rig witch gets 50 steady FPS and it will be torture for ya.
Well it’s good data, but it’s not much of diff from 2500K which will get same fps on 4 Cores ( 8 threads) this game is just not optimized for multi core CPU ( 2++ ).
Even I3 will outpreform sometimes in this game an FX 4100 oc’ed while it shouldn’t and it gets it kitten kicked in other games where FX shines.
This game got poor engine design, on my i5 2410M at 2,3-2.9 GHZ i get 20-25 FPS in WvWvW. while my grap card 540M is bottleneck.
No. This thread is about asking devs to optimize a game for a minority of people on amd cpus. Btw, asking devs to optimize performance on amd cpus is like asking devs to optimize the game to run on a graphing calculator. The point being amd cpus dont have the power to play the game at a decent fps without being oc’d to 5ghz.
They dont need to be oc’d to 5.0 ghz at all,you’re so full of it you dont even realize it.Besides if you disagree with everything said here and are an obvious amd basher then im wondering why you are even on this thread since you didnt provide anything usefull at all besides being the obvious amd basher and constantly claiming how awesome your cpu us and how bad amd is.
I am locked in at 60 fps on high settings when i am exploring the world. I get 45 fps in cities or more. I get 15+ on Dragon DE’s and 15+ in WvWvW zergs. Dont believe people that sit there and say that intel is simply better…. That is not the case. You need to look at the price of the processors that they are using.
@swordbreaker You are an idiot… anything above 60 is not noticable. Scientifically proven fact. Stop being an elitist and get your $2k+ build out of here. Youre not cool and you are spreading unfactual information. Compare a $150 amd cpu to a $150 intel cpu. Not a $150 amd cpu to a $210+ intel cpu. His comp is getting FANTASTIC performance for the amount of money he spent on it.
Here is my rig:
fx 4100 @4.3
8gb RAM @ 1600
Radeon 6850 @840/1060
Upgrades in the next few months will be fx 8350 and a radeon 7870. I will be getting 30+ in everything garunteed.
Well it’s good data, but it’s not much of diff from 2500K which will get same fps on 4 Cores ( 8 threads) this game is just not optimized for multi core CPU ( 2++ ).
Even I3 will outpreform sometimes in this game an FX 4100 oc’ed while it shouldn’t and it gets it kitten kicked in other games where FX shines.
This game got poor engine design, on my i5 2410M at 2,3-2.9 GHZ i get 20-25 FPS in WvWvW. while my grap card 540M is bottleneck.
Again, the fx 4100 costs $109. It should perform like a $109 cpu. Which it does.. and then some. You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Amd cpus are the best value for your money. But you also get what you pay for.
The Phenom II X4 and X6’s are great and even some of the Athlon II X4’s are good, the FX Bulldozers are terrible although some people has gotten good results from an 8120 or 6100. The APUs are proving to be worth the price ($120 for A10 5800K as I built a microITX system with that last week, amazing piece) and the Piledriver 8350 should be much better.
The FX 4170 is mediocre, but man it overclocks to 4.8GHz without issues but the power consumption is its biggest problem (as is with the Bulldozer series).
Amd cpus are the best value for your money. But you also get what you pay for.
The Phenom II X4 and X6’s are great and even some of the Athlon II X4’s are good, the FX Bulldozers are terrible although some people has gotten good results from an 8120 or 6100. The APUs are proving to be worth the price ($120 for A10 5800K as I built a microITX system with that last week, amazing piece) and the Piledriver 8350 should be much better.
The FX 4170 is mediocre, but man it overclocks to 4.8GHz without issues but the power consumption is its biggest problem (as is with the Bulldozer series).
Ummm, how is the fx line terrible?? again look at the price and the performance. And the fx line is more power efficient than the x4’s and x6’s, and are more flexible.
I am getting completely acceptable performance from my little $109 cpu
You CAN see a difference between 60 fps and 120 (difers person to person).. however you will only notice this difference on a monitor that can handle said fps ..i.e a 120hz monitor.
The human eye doesnt work in frames per second. And i wont get into how it does work since it would take forever.. however theres no need to say ‘its proven blah bla’ since its perfectly simple to test yourself.
Simply load up an old game that you can run at super high fps… use a program to cap the fps ..like evga precision ..and go through the fps count in 10’s.
So start of at 10fps ..then 20 ..then 30 ..and so on untill you reach your monitors limit ..i.e 60hz or 120hz. And then you have your answere ..to ‘can YOU see a difference between X and X frame rates’ ..it wont be the same for everyone i might add.
Granted you cant test above 60fps if you dont have a monitor than can show above 60fps ..anything above 60 fps on a 60hz monitor will cause tearing and wont actualy be showing the fps indicated on screen. The indication on screen will be the fps that is being pumped out to the screen ..but not what the screen is actualy showing (due ot its limits)
3930k 4.6ghz | NH-D14 Cooler | P9x79 Pro MB | 16gb 1866mhz G.Skill | 128gb SSD + 2×500gb HDD
EVGA GTX 780 Classified w/ EK block | XSPC D5 Photon 270 Res/Pump | NexXxos Monsta 240 Rad
CM Storm Stryker case | Seasonic 1000W PSU | Asux Xonar D2X & Logitech Z5500 Sound system |
You CAN see a difference between 60 fps and 120 (difers person to person).. however you will only notice this difference on a monitor that can handle said fps ..i.e a 120hz monitor.
The human eye doesnt work in frames per second. And i wont get into how it does work since it would take forever.. however theres no need to say ‘its proven blah bla’ since its perfectly simple to test yourself.
Simply load up an old game that you can run at super high fps… use a program to cap the fps ..like evga precision ..and go through the fps count in 10’s.
So start of at 10fps ..then 20 ..then 30 ..and so on untill you reach your monitors limit ..i.e 60hz or 120hz. And then you have your answere ..to ‘can YOU see a difference between X and X frame rates’ ..it wont be the same for everyone i might add.
Granted you cant test above 60fps if you dont have a monitor than can show above 60fps ..anything above 60 fps on a 60hz monitor will cause tearing and wont actualy be showing the fps indicated on screen. The indication on screen will be the fps that is being pumped out to the screen ..but not what the screen is actualy showing (due ot its limits)
mmm no, i cant tell a difference. I have never ever heard of a person that can. All i see are articles that say you cannot tell the difference.
i am actually running a phenom II 965 @ 4.0 Ghz with a 6870 × 2
I am curious as to how some ppl in this thread consider WvWvW playable considering i am only getting 11 FPS in big fights.
I am using a G15 so i can see my CPU/MEM load all the time on the little LCD and in WvW my CPU caps at 85% showing the CPU is the bottleneck which is to be expected.
Just curious if there is someone that’s getting beter performance on a some what similair CPU.
To work out if your cpu is bottlenecking do this math. its not 100% accurate ..but its close. The main number to worry about is 2.5 or 3 ..which is refering to the number of high usuage threads GW2 uses .some say its 2.5 some say its 3..so do both
100/Number of Threads x 2.5 = Battleneck cap %
100/Number of Threads x 3 = Battleneck cap %
So for me its
100/12 (8.333) x 2.5 = 20 .83
100/12 (8.333) x 3 = 25
So if my CPU reaches between 20% and 25% during GW2 i can safely say my cpu is likely running the important GW2 threads as fast as it can. Which in WvWvW is roughyl accurate i was on about 22%cpu usuage and was getting 50fps with my gpu at 60% usuage. (30 people on screen shooting a gate)
For a 4 thread and 8 thread cpu it would be.
100/4 (25) x 2.5 =62.5
100/4 (25) x 3 = 75
100/8 (12.5) x 2.5 -31.25
100/8 (12.5) x 3 = 37.5
Add ontop of that background usuage for windows and other programs ..depending on the cpu and number of processes the % will vary. But it makes sense that a 4 thread cpu + background processes would register very high usuage likely above/around 85%
This matches Gibbel’s usuage above.
3930k 4.6ghz | NH-D14 Cooler | P9x79 Pro MB | 16gb 1866mhz G.Skill | 128gb SSD + 2×500gb HDD
EVGA GTX 780 Classified w/ EK block | XSPC D5 Photon 270 Res/Pump | NexXxos Monsta 240 Rad
CM Storm Stryker case | Seasonic 1000W PSU | Asux Xonar D2X & Logitech Z5500 Sound system |
Amd cpus are the best value for your money. But you also get what you pay for.
The Phenom II X4 and X6’s are great and even some of the Athlon II X4’s are good, the FX Bulldozers are terrible although some people has gotten good results from an 8120 or 6100. The APUs are proving to be worth the price ($120 for A10 5800K as I built a microITX system with that last week, amazing piece) and the Piledriver 8350 should be much better.
The FX 4170 is mediocre, but man it overclocks to 4.8GHz without issues but the power consumption is its biggest problem (as is with the Bulldozer series).
Ummm, how is the fx line terrible?? again look at the price and the performance. And the fx line is more power efficient than the x4’s and x6’s, and are more flexible.
I am getting completely acceptable performance from my little $109 cpu
Well the Phenom II X4’s still beats the FX 4100/4170. most of the FX’s consume OVER 200 watts, the listed 125W isn’t accurate. The Piledrivers don’t even breatk 120W consumption, the A10 5800K rates at 113W under load from benchmarks.
