Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Getback on October 15, 2011, 02:40:40 PM
-
Is that true? I thought that was resolved.
-
tis still true sir.
although i'm still trying to figure out if it's windows services or directx or something else keeping both cores at 50+% while i'm playing ah, and i have a 3rd gen dual core athlon regor 255.
-
tis still true sir.
although i'm still trying to figure out if it's windows services or directx or something else keeping both cores at 50+% while i'm playing ah, and i have a 3rd gen dual core athlon regor 255.
Well that's a bummer. I was looking forward in the future of building a new machine with one of the latest AMD chips.
-
might want to look into one of the new bulldozer processors. amd made some changes that could have fixed the issue.
-
might want to look into one of the new bulldozer processors. amd made some changes that could have fixed the issue.
that is interesting, wonder if Skuzzy might have some news regarding it
anyways....... regarding the Intel using 2 cores AMD only utilizing 1 core.....
seriously..... I have an Intel i7-2600K 3.4 GHz quad core and I have an AMD Q975 3.6 GHz quadcore and plaing Aces High on either PC, I do not see where one is any better than the other......
both have 6.0 GB/s SATA III SSD's
both have 16 GBs of 1600 MHz DDR3 Sys ram
both use windows 7 Ult 64 bit
I have seen where people claim, go with Intel you will have less trouble playign AH ( less problems ) or I have seen people slam AMD and tell others that AMD is inferior product
Seriously! do your home work / research and you can build yourself a nice AMD based PC that will perform at max settings in Aces High with not one problem ( you can do the same with Intel )
but unless one is into heavy commercial video editing , then you really not going to see much difference in using an AMD vs an Intel ........
certian benchmarks my AMD 975 3.6 GHz quadcore will out perform my Intel i7-2600K 3.4 GHz quadcore .............. while benchmarking using other progs my Intel will perform better.....
but judging by just using everyday use........ their is really no difference .......... unless one wants to talk absolutes ( meaning like being 1.0134 points better in this category, or the opposite CPU being 1.00831 points better in another benchmark )....... all that benchmark stuff is hogwash to the regular home consumer.....
my personal opinion.....
I have seen on these boards where both type PC users ( Intel or AMD ) both types of users/owners have experience problems.....
research and properly dspec your PC parts to see hwat works best together and one should have less or maybe no problems.....
just saying ( I am not favoring either brand Intel nor AMD ..... I like them both )
TC
-
hwat works best together
is hwat some secret smart guy word that I've never heard? :lol :bolt:
-
that is interesting, wonder if Skuzzy might have some news regarding it
anyways....... regarding the Intel using 2 cores AMD only utilizing 1 core.....
seriously..... I have an Intel i7-2600K 3.4 GHz quad core and I have an AMD Q975 3.6 GHz quadcore and plaing Aces High on either PC, I do not see where one is any better than the other......
both have 6.0 GB/s SATA III SSD's
both have 16 GBs of 1600 MHz DDR3 Sys ram
both use windows 7 Ult 64 bit
I have seen where people claim, go with Intel you will have less trouble playign AH ( less problems ) or I have seen people slam AMD and tell others that AMD is inferior product
Seriously! do your home work / research and you can build yourself a nice AMD based PC that will perform at max settings in Aces High with not one problem ( you can do the same with Intel )
but unless one is into heavy commercial video editing , then you really not going to see much difference in using an AMD vs an Intel ........
certian benchmarks my AMD 975 3.6 GHz quadcore will out perform my Intel i7-2600K 3.4 GHz quadcore .............. while benchmarking using other progs my Intel will perform better.....
but judging by just using everyday use........ their is really no difference .......... unless one wants to talk absolutes ( meaning like being 1.0134 points better in this category, or the opposite CPU being 1.00831 points better in another benchmark )....... all that benchmark stuff is hogwash to the regular home consumer.....
my personal opinion.....
I have seen on these boards where both type PC users ( Intel or AMD ) both types of users/owners have experience problems.....
research and properly dspec your PC parts to see hwat works best together and one should have less or maybe no problems.....
just saying ( I am not favoring either brand Intel nor AMD ..... I like them both )
TC
is that bold statement that is almost always stated with amd systems. "components must match to each other", or "if yo do the proper research you should have no problem".
sometimes i have read that if you buy this component then you must buy another component from the same manu to work with it.
semp
-
is hwat some secret smart guy word that I've never heard? :lol :bolt:
nah, I was just typing in a hurry and some keys got ahead of themselves :)
is that bold statement that is almost always stated with amd systems. "components must match to each other", or "if yo do the proper research you should have no problem".
sometimes i have read that if you buy this component then you must buy another component from the same manu to work with it.
semp
the part you put in "Bold" (you did not highlight/bold the end of that sentence), although it really is meant for both PC platform types... AMD & Intel
after being on these forums forever and a day, I have seen both types of users ( Intel & AMD ) have serious issues for not spec'ing out their PC builds.........
TC
-
Well that's a bummer. I was looking forward in the future of building a new machine with one of the latest AMD chips.
Don't think too hard about it. AMD chips still perform just fine with Aces High and even though AH won't take advantage of both cores it will still run very well on one while windows junk runs on the other.
Even so I'd still have to recommend Intel over AMD but whatever you do, don't let this be your deciding factor.
-
Don't think too hard about it. AMD chips still perform just fine with Aces High and even though AH won't take advantage of both cores it will still run very well on one while windows junk runs on the other.
Even so I'd still have to recommend Intel over AMD but whatever you do, don't let this be your deciding factor.
It will be a while so I'll wait until the new chips are out and someone else tries them.
-
One AMD core (deneb, phenomII) is still enough to run ah well with almost any video card (over 50 bux, of course).
I would wait til the prices go down, i bet the bulldozer is extremely expensive there (still not even available in europe)
-
certian benchmarks my AMD 975 3.6 GHz quadcore will out perform my Intel i7-2600K 3.4 GHz quadcore .............. while benchmarking using other progs my Intel will perform better.....
i wouldnt give any of those benchmarks any credibility at all, either.
the old trick of if cpuid!=GenuineIntel run SSE2, else; SSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1 etc. still works on most ICC compiled benchmarks;
making for a very biased comparison. iow, there is no substitute for end-user feedback on actual programs used.
and as you said, there is no performance difference when it comes to AH, but using AMD leaves you a bit more money. :D
- intel compiler uses suboptimal code paths resulting in poor performance on non-intel cpu:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 - even to this day, after antitrust settlement, intel compiler still will use suboptimal code-path if cpuid!=genuineintel
http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#127
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138574&p=204319#p204281 - see montarayjack's comment for ICC12: http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138786&start=175#p210722
- Cinebench 11.5 has cpuid check, likely uses sub-optimal code path for amd:
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138786&start=175#p210650 - changing cpuid to GenuineIntel nets 47.4% increase in performance:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22683/Intel_Forced_to_Remove_quot_Cripple_AMD_quot_Function_from_Compiler_ - PCMark/Futuremark rigged bentmark to favor intel:
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=135382#p139712
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/07/atom-nano-review.ars/6 - intel cheating at 3DMark vantage via driver: http://techreport.com/articles.x/17732/2
-
1) No AMD CPU has ever been able to match Intel's SSE performance. AMD uses macros to offer that instruction set and they will always suffer performance losses to any comparable Intel CPU when the SSE instructions are used. That is why all high end video suites run better on Intel CPU's than AMD. It has nothing to do with code paths. It is a native problem with AMD and always has been. By the way, neither Sony, Adobe, nor Pinnacle use the Intel compiler.
2) The Intel compiler is made by Intel. Yes it does favor Intel CPU's. Guess what? THEY WROTE IT! Not a major application available today uses that compiler. Even when it is used, only a moron would not understand the code generated will favor Intel, because (once again), Intel wrote it! It should favor Intel! If AMD would spend the time and money on building thier own compiler to compete, then it would be a moot point and you would be in here talking about it instead.
3) Most of your support information is from AMD, or AMD support sites. They are biased towards thier own product. A bit of a "DUH", kind of thing. Intel is just as bias with thier marketing as well. If you visit Intel support sites, you will find just as much negative information as you want about AMD. If you chose to partake of only one side of a story it will, inherently, cause you to make potentially poor decisions.
4) AMD/ATI and Nvidia have been cheating at the 3DMark/Vantage benchmarks for years. They set the standard for cheating in that benchmark. Intel is just following thier lead.
I get tired of having to make sure every side gets represented when you post. I really wish you would just stop it. AMD and Intel both have excellent product offerings. Both have an edge over each other, in various sectors, of the overall marketplace. Both have deficiencies as well. Decide what you want your computer to do and then do the research to determine which products fit the requirements. I strongly suggest staying away from sites that derive revenue from either AMD and/or Intel (most review sites do).
Unfortunately, there will always be fans of AMD and Intel, which color any objective discussion of the products. The above post is full of smoke and mirrors. Basically it is saying the Intel CPU's execute certain instructions better than AMD and for some reason we are supposed to think that is a bad thing. I think AMD competes just fine with Intel and there really is no need for smoke and mirrors. The only area AMD falls flat on its face is in the area of streaming video or anything that makes extensive use of the SSE family of instructions (most high end video editors). A bit of a shame as AMD has a better FPU than Intel does.
I do not use any benchmarks. I use real applications to test with. Still waiting for AMD's Bulldozer to see what it brings to the application party.
-
Bulldozer is suppose to be released soon if it hasn't been already. Are you going to test it Skuzzy?
Here it is. Comes in several flavors. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
-
I have always been pretty much brand neutral when it comes to CPUS and GPUS. For the last 3 or so years, I have been running AMD. My most current AMD processor being a Phenom II 955. I really loved that processor because of its great price\performance and AMD's tendency to keep socket compatibility alive through multiple chip generations. Having said that, I always had issues running that chip in AH. First with a ATI 5770, and then with a 6870. No matter what I did, AH would always nearly max out core 0 when there were a lot of planes in the area, and when that happened, my game would slow to a crawl. I could never understand what was happening because I only use my windows computer for gaming and have no anti virus or any other 3rd party background software installed at all. I followed pretty much all the guides out there to reduce resource hogs, and used all of Skuzzy's recommendations as well. The odd thing was that in every other game I played ( I play a lot), I never had issues with my AMD chip. It was fantastic, and I loved it, but AH is my main\favorite game to play, so I finally gave up and bought an intel 2600k. Keeping the same ram, and other hardware, I installed the new MB and CPU, and reinstalled windows. The change was Dramatic. Now the game is spread out on a couple cores, and so far the only time I have seen frames drop below 60 is in FSOs when 100+ planes are taking off at once. They drop in to the 30s, where before in FSOs , they would be near single digits on take off. Now, I am aware the 2600k is more expensive, but the difference in performance is not nearly so dramatic in other games. It makes me wonder..what is it about AH that doesn't allow you to take advantage of AMD's multi cores? AMD's strength, especially in bulldozer is its multiple cores. Per core performance is way behind intel, and I just wonder what the future holds for Bulldozer within AH. I would love to go back to AMD someday, but I refuse if it is not working well in this game.
-
/// AMD uses macros to offer that instruction set and they will always suffer performance losses to any comparable Intel CPU when the SSE instructions are used. //// neither Sony, Adobe, nor Pinnacle use the Intel compiler.
a.) macros, by w/c you mean macro-ops? intel uses macro-ops too(see: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1998/3), w/c are then fed into schedulers that emit the machine level instructions/assembly. i dont understand comparing SSE performance, one has to go down a bit further because SSE is not what's being executed by a cpu, but its equivalent assembly-level instruction. that is when one then looks at micro-op instruction latency and throughput tables for those many assembly-level instructions. for a comprehensive list see: http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf. i suggest reading P.71 for intel SB and P.161 for amd K10(athlon/phenom/thuban). if it gets too tedious, a much more concise list is available for common instructions: http://gmplib.org/~tege/x86-timing.pdf, starting at P.3. for intel SB and amd k10 comparison. as you can glean from the tables, it is no easy task to compare "SSE performance" between two modern uarchs. Even people who do this for a living don't say that because it is far more complex than anyone can imagine. One has to actually disassemble the app/workload into assembly, count the latency for each and every instruction, to arrive at a value for latency/throughput. no easy task, but if you have time do disassemble AH and the related DLL's... that would be some exercise! =)
the more likely explanation for this "better SSE performance" is not the hardware but the way software is optimized.
there are many ways to optimize software for a specific uarch, summarized in this post i made w/ a lecture slide from UC-Berkeley:
http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=532&t=138786&start=125#p210572
even cache-management strategies alone can yield vastly differing results between amd(exclusive-inclusive) & intel(inclusive) cache systems.
but of course, the easiest way to optimize for intel is use ICC, since it automatically de-optimizes for via/amd. =)
also, about sony not being optimized for intel..
(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/svegas.png)
i haven't found any optimization info for Adobe/Pinnacle, but intel pays a lot of $$$ to developers for intel-specific software optimization.
one last thing about performance, and it's about cache, did you know amd's so-many-years old k10 architecture has faster/lower latency L1, L2 than even intel SB?: http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/mac/reviews/AMD/Bulldozer/3.jpg
the bottom line for this long post really is, it's not SSE performance that intel uses to gain a lead, but intel-specific software optimization.
from using ICC(in some cases) to tailoring code to work best for one uarch over the other.
The Intel compiler is made by Intel. Yes it does favor Intel CPU's. Guess what? THEY WROTE IT! ////
b.) my issue is the use of ICC in the many windows benchmarks misleads the ordinary consumer into believing a certain CPU is far better than the other, when in actual workloads they work just the same if not even marginally better. i dont even see disclaimers. i would call that fraud & misrepresentation.
Most of your support information is from AMD, or AMD support sites. They are biased towards thier own product. //// If you chose to partake of only one side of a story it will, inherently, cause you to make potentially poor decisions.
c.) unfortunately, these are the only places you can read non-mainstream opinions that are de-popularized by big corporation marketing. where would you want me to read about amd's good points? anandtech? xD
///// Intel is just following thier lead.
d.) intel has more than cheating to worry about, like for example bringing their latest gen GPU in SB to 2011 standards. as it is, it performs only as well as a 2005 nv/ati GPU: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21099/11, it has good fps in reviews mainly because it is rendering less work/worse picture. i'm not even going to mention drivers that are worse than ati/nV combined.
//// Basically it is saying the Intel CPU's execute certain instructions better than AMD and for some reason we are supposed to think that is a bad thing.
e.) it is a bad thing if it misleads people. again, running SSE2 for benchmarks if its an amd cpu and SSE3+, SSE4+ if intel is a fraudulent practice by benchmarketers.
//////// The only area AMD falls flat on its face is in the area of streaming video or anything that makes extensive use of the SSE family of instructions (most high end video editors). A bit of a shame as AMD has a better FPU than Intel does.
actually, majority of SSE instructions for media/video editing/transcoding are integer. not float. see 3-operand AVX, XOP.
/////// Still waiting for AMD's Bulldozer to see what it brings to the application party.
great for multithreaded workloads, but for single threads, the narrow cores dont do very well. =)
the 8-cores are targeted for people who run heavily-threaded desktops/multiple apps open simultaneously at the same time.
people who use lightly-threaded apps or use only one app at a time on desktop should be buying faster duals/quads, anyway.
-mainconcept http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=17 (http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=17)
-mediashow http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14)
-h.264 http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/14)
-vp8 http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/17 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/17)
-sha1 http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/17 (http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-fx-8150-processor-review/17)
-photoshop cs5 http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=14 (http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=14)
-photoshop cs5 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-15.html)
-winrar, faster than 2600k http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page7.html (http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page7.html)
-winrar, improves over x6 http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html)
-7-zip better than 2600k here: http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41698.png (http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4955/41698.png) http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7)
-7-zip same perf as 2600k http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html)
-POV-ray, faster than 2600k http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/10/ (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/10/)
-POV-ray http://www.nordichardware.se/test-lab-cpu-chipset/44360-amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-goer-entre-pa-marknaden-test.html?start=15#content (http://www.nordichardware.se/test-lab-cpu-chipset/44360-amd-fx-8150-bulldozer-goer-entre-pa-marknaden-test.html?start=15#content)
-x264(2nd pass AVX enabled) http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/7)
-x264 (2nd pass, better overall than 2600k) http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2125&pageID=11108 (http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2125&pageID=11108)
-x264 (2nd pass +.3 than SB2600k) http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/7/ (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/7/)
-handbrake; http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/9/ (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1741/9/)
-truecrypt; http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2125&pageID=11111 (http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=2125&pageID=11111)
-solidworks; faster than 2600k http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page7.html (http://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page7.html)
-abbyy filereader http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-16.html)
-C-Ray, as fast as $1k i7-990X, http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/c-rayir38.png (http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/c-rayir38.png)
-
I would love to go back to AMD someday, but I refuse if it is not working well in this game.
not sure what was wrong with your set-up. i've used the exact same CPU w/ a HD4890 a while back.
balls-to-the-walls settings at 2048x1152 rsolution. no hiccups. no slowdowns. :( :( :(
fwiw, im even gaming on an amd a6-3400m(llano laptop).
see its comparison w/ a much pricier other model: http://youtu.be/mdPi4GPEI74
heres some screenies, note that it only runs at 1.4GHz, quad core, (easily clocks to 2.2GHz = more fps) 1366x768 resolution.
i think it makes fair use of at least three cores..
default settings, 37fps w/ fairly heavy smoke in foreground: http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/ahss2.jpg
ive joined bish horde missions, it never stutters even at lower fps (uppers 20's, remains smooth, no spiking like in SB laptop video), also note the rook horde:
http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/ahss1.jpg :D
~10fps drop at max settings, w/ hi-res pack, 120deg FOV: http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv4/wuttzi/ahss3.jpg
also, my desktop is badly cluttered. IE9 w/ multiple tabs, msoffice is open, skype msnger, etc..
-
As it was stated some time ago, yes AH only uses 1 AMD core (for now). :)
Also as mentioned, AH can run great on that one core, or it can go badly. I run AMD with no issues at all, but if I had the cash, I would have likely chosen Intel. AMD is cheaper, there are reason for that, but for most any user it's not gonna be something we notice. Course the editors and programmers and whatnot will. I was running the same as a friends Intel system (Q6600 vs Phenom II 555 / same GPU) in the games we played which considering how much cheaper mine was (despite being way newer), was worth it. :D
But in short, yes, as mentioned several times, it only uses 1 core.
-
i dunno, it uses at least 3 cores on mine? http://db.tt/F7QTSAaX (http://db.tt/F7QTSAaX)
anyone run AH and show the resource monitor history when immediately alt-tabbing out of game?
from the resource mon i see it has 21 threads when i'm playing at ~35+ avg cpu load on a 1.4GHz quad.
-
To BigR
AH uses one AMD core, so adjusting the clock speed will have a great effect on the in-game FPS.
My system: phenom II 955, 8 gigs of ddr3 1600, hd 5830. The 5830 isnt as a great video card, performs a little bit worse than the 6850.
Running the cpu at 3.2 GHz i get a very steady 60 fps with all the eye cand on except the shadows at 4096. Made some tests, just couse i was curious. Downclocking the cpu has no effect on it til i go under 2 Ghz... (!)
Idk how can the 2600k be as a great improvement when the bottleneck is the monitor.
-
AMD Phenom,Ati 6970, 8gig of memory.
Everything on, hi res etc 60fsp.
Best bit of advice I have heard here is to use real programs to benchmark your pc.
I rarely look at frame rates anymore, you can get a bit obsessive about it.
Only thing I do is increase fan speed, now it's getting colder I will stop doing that.
-
Well, I figured something was wrong with my setup somehow. It's just that every other game was flawless and AH always sputtered out on my AMD. I did clean installs of everything, did all Skuzzy's recommendations, and it still gave me problems. I have always been a fan of AMD, and I will continue to be, but right now I am really happy with the i7, so I will stick with that for a while. I built up a system for my dad using my AMD gear and he loves it, so it is still being put to good use.
I will probably never find out what was happening in that system with AH, but honestly I was sick of dealing with it. The funny thing is I had an original 3 core Phenom chip before the 955, and It never gave me issues. :headscratch:
-
I had a Nvidia 550 and it caused me lots of problems with boot up etc :)
My Ati card is fine :)
Just one of those things when hardware is moody, anyone want a 550 brand new? In UK :)
-
<snip>
There are so many things wrong in this post I should just delete it. You take marketing information and put a spin on it as if it were technical. Your conclusions are very flawed and seem more based on paranoia than actual fact. Sony's optimizations are that they are fully threaded and will take advantage of all available cores. Ta-da! Sony is the smallest of the three I mentioned and there is no love between Sony and Intel.
Again, you are basically claiming AMD cannot run the same code as Intel and be as fast, so it must not be fair. This does not make AMD look any better to anyone.
I have run my own tests using my own code and AMD has never been able to match Intel's SSE performance. SSE (all forms) is used extensively by video editors to present the editing streams, which also run during transcoding. You are aware that AMD is typically a couple of generations behind on the SSE levels available from Intel? This is due to licensing issues and AMD also seems to treat SSE as an afterthought.
If AMD has a hard time keeping up with the same code as Intel, then who is at fault? Oh, I know you are going to claim they are not using the same code paths, which is pure paranoia. Take a debugger and show me. Good luck with that as I have already done it and there is only one code path in Sony's code.
If Intel wants to show any company a better way to code to take advantage of thier processors, then there is nothing wrong with that. AMD could do the same thing, or AMD could find a way to improve the processor performance and make use of the same code optimizations Intel does. Go look at Intel's site sometime. They offer free code to help optimize performance. It is source code and not one line of it is CPU specific.
Like I said, I run my own code, my own tests. I do not trust any benchmark. As I have written many benchmarks over the years, I have a pretty good understanding of how to accomplish what I need to accomplish and how to test what I need to test. Any applications I use, I have gone through them with a debugger and witnessed the code used.
As far as other sites to trust. I have not found one which goes to the level I go to when I test a CPU, so I prefer my own results. I feel for any consumer who only has sites which make thier money from the advertisers who will pull the plug if said site says anything negative about the product(s). Every site has an agenda, which is oft times hidden from the reader. You need to be more paranoid and skeptical about the sites you read to get information from.
Getback, I will run Bulldozer when I can get my hands on one.
BigR, AMD has a compatibility issue in many of the CPU's (not all), which impacts not only Aces High, but other applications (not all). Specifically, it impacts applications which make use of multiple high resolution timers AND natively multi-thread. The code work-around, which basically forces the game to run on one CPU core, is provided by AMD and used without modification. Again, not all AMD CPU's will be impacted by this. It will also depend on what is running in the background. If a background application is using a high resolution timer, then the game will be forced to one core.
-
Getback, I will run Bulldozer when I can get my hands on one.
I have a pretty good understanding of how to accomplish what I need to accomplish and how to test what I need to test.
Skuzzy please keep us posted. I like to here what you come up with on your benchmarks.
If what I'm reading and hearing it does seem promising,but we all know how that goes.
-
I have no doubt you believe that stuff too.
More of your "fanboiism's". Intel > AMD
-
Benchmarks actually mean nothing to me. What's important is will the CPU satisfy my standards for the application I intend to use it for.
-
Here's my take on things.
1> Generally speaking Intel is better than AMD. For example a 3.2Mhz Intel processor is going to be better than a 3.2Mhz AMD processor for a number of reasons. Now if you're matching a P3 intel to say an AMD Phenom well of course AMD is going to blow it away! Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.
2> However DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR AMD is probably going to be better than Intel. In other words a $100 AMD processor is probably going to outperform a $100 Intel processor because for that money (and I'm just making these numbers up to show my point but it's generally correct) you can get a 3.2Ghz Quad core AMD processor as opposed to a 2.5Ghz Dual core Intel processor.
3> There are a lot of things that Intel processors can do that AMD processors can't... at least without taking a performance hit in the process. But for the AVERAGE computer used this probably won't be evident. It seems as if Intel "sets the standards" and AMD has to find a way to make it work reasonably well.
So in a nutshell - unless you use your computer for movie editing, 3D CAD design, or other "professional" processor intensive purposes then there's a good chance AMD is going to suit you just fine. If you're on a budget and you want "more for your money" then AMD may be a good solution for you. But if you're simply looking for the best performer and/or money isn't so much of an issue then Intel is the obvious choice for your needs.
-
More of your "fanboiism's". Intel > AMD
that argument is all bones & no meat at all! [or all hat & no cattle(?)] :D :D :D
ya know, put in something like this: Guinness World CPU Record
http://www.overclocking-tv.com/content/news/11863/amd-continues-with-cold-bug-free-cpu-extreme-bulldozer/
even intel's much-praised 32nm dont come close. :aok :D :D
-
Benchmarks actually mean nothing to me. What's important is will the CPU satisfy my standards for the application I intend to use it for.
You got it, now you need to do your research.
-
One of the things you can do is to contact the support folks who support the applications you want to run and ask them what CPU will run that application the best. Support people are only interested in what will result in the fewest number of calls and emails so they tend to be pretty upfront and honest about it.
-
my AutoCad MEP works extremely better on AMD than it does on Intel...... AutoCad has always worked better on AMD platforms for me personally..... as well as some of my other auditing programs & hvac programs.....
yet my Intel blows my AMD away when it comes to coding/decrypting/editing movies & videos....
just my personal experience
TC
-
That makes sense TC. AMD has a better FPU than Intel, and AutoCAD is all about FPU code. While Intel does kick them in the transcoding/streaming department.
Like I said before, they both have their own strengths and weaknesses.
-
That makes sense TC. AMD has a better FPU than Intel, and AutoCAD is all about FPU code. While Intel does kick them in the transcoding/streaming department.
Like I said before, they both have their own strengths and weaknesses.
I'm going to wait for word from the man. However, it will be a while before I build again anyway.
-
cranked up my laptop chip to 2.6GHz stable from 1.4GHz stock (http://db.tt/jNqDWm2y); using k10stat.
even gave much better FR's:
+45 (http://db.tt/A5VtwFRJ) ~ +50 (http://db.tt/p90LgYms) ~ in hordes, +48 (http://db.tt/XrDLdw4u) in heavy smokes.
all for $450 price tag from best buy (http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus/601808-k53ta-best-deal-ever-could.html). sweetest deal, yet.
btw, nice touch on the texas rangers logo in tanktown (http://db.tt/Ua4eDBKC) :D
-
my AutoCad MEP works extremely better on AMD than it does on Intel...... AutoCad has always worked better on AMD platforms for me personally..... as well as some of my other auditing programs & hvac programs.....
yet my Intel blows my AMD away when it comes to coding/decrypting/editing movies & videos....
just my personal experience
TC
Wouldn't have thought that TC. Good info.
-
Hi Skuzzy. (long time)
Downloaded the game and tried on a Phenom II X6 1100T.
Definately uses more than one core.
Would guess all Phenom II's would be the same.
-
cranked up my laptop chip to 2.6GHz stable from 1.4GHz stock (http://db.tt/jNqDWm2y); using k10stat.
even gave much better FR's:
+45 (http://db.tt/A5VtwFRJ) ~ +50 (http://db.tt/p90LgYms) ~ in hordes, +48 (http://db.tt/XrDLdw4u) in heavy smokes.
all for $450 price tag from best buy (http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus/601808-k53ta-best-deal-ever-could.html). sweetest deal, yet.
btw, nice touch on the texas rangers logo in tanktown (http://db.tt/Ua4eDBKC) :D
assuming you play ah with all the eye candy on. oh wait do you?
semp
-
Hi Skuzzy. (long time)
Downloaded the game and tried on a Phenom II X6 1100T.
Definately uses more than one core.
Would guess all Phenom II's would be the same.
Phenom II's are a bit of a grab bag as that is where AMD started cutting in a fix into the silicon (this one is hard to nail down as AMD has a habit of not notifying the public when they make all their silicon fixes). However, if you run another application which uses a high resolution timer, at the same time as the game is running, it will revert to using one core.
Good to see you again Kev. It has been a while. Hope everything is going well with you.
-
Regardless of the manufacturer, Aces High will more enjoy "per core" performance.
This means that the fastest core II processors will surely outperform a lower end I5 and possibly I7.
One thing that clouds the waters is that many benchmarks showing performance comparisons will show the summed performance of all the cores meaning a low end six core amd phenom will be outperformed by a phenomII X2 555 black edition in aces high.
-
assuming you play ah with all the eye candy on. oh wait do you?
semp
yup, but at only 1366x768. hi-res pack installed in those screenies.
next step is 2560x1600p with amd fx. BF3 here i come! :D
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6106/6284763678_632ebaff57_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62956856@N03/6284763678/)
DSC04137 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62956856@N03/6284763678/) by ᵿ (http://www.flickr.com/people/62956856@N03/), on Flickr
-
I'm going to wait for word from the man. However, it will be a while before I build again anyway.
I am a bit disappointed with Bulldozer. The 8150 seems to scale better than the Intel 2500K, but the performance and power usage is worse when running low loads. The power usage escalates pretty high, compared to Intel, when loading all the cores up. It was a bit of a pain to overclock the 8150, compared to the 2500K Intel CPU.
Seems the best price/performance ratios are found in the Intel 2500K.
I expected more, from all the marketing AMD has been slinging around for the last few years about Bulldozer. Maybe my expectations were too high from all that media blizting they did, but the real world performance levels are worse than a Phenom II, in single threaded cases.
I do not think you can go wrong with Bulldozer, but I see no compelling reason to not use the Intel 2500K over it. In some cases the 2500K performs better, which I would not have expected. If you average it all together, they are pretty much neck-in-neck.
Aces High, in a lightly loaded system, performs better on the Intel 2500K versus the AMD 8150, with stock clocks.
-
I am a bit disappointed with Bulldozer. The 8150 seems to scale better than the Intel 2500K, but the performance and power usage is worse when running low loads. The power usage escalates pretty high, compared to Intel, when loading all the cores up. It was a bit of a pain to overclock the 8150, compared to the 2500K Intel CPU.
Seems the best price/performance ratios are found in the Intel 2500K.
I expected more, from all the marketing AMD has been slinging around for the last few years about Bulldozer. Maybe my expectations were too high from all that media blizting they did, but the real world performance levels are worse than a Phenom II, in single threaded cases.
I do not think you can go wrong with Bulldozer, but I see no compelling reason to not use the Intel 2500K over it. In some cases the 2500K performs better, which I would not have expected. If you average it all together, they are pretty much neck-in-neck.
Aces High, in a lightly loaded system, performs better on the Intel 2500K versus the AMD 8150, with stock clocks.
Latest issue of Maximum PC highlights the Bulldozer, AMD struck out with it. The Intel scored higher on the majority of the scores/speeds/etc.
Agree with you completely Skuzzy. The Intel's are solid.
-
I am a bit disappointed with Bulldozer. The 8150 seems to scale better than the Intel 2500K, but the performance and power usage is worse when running low loads. The power usage escalates pretty high, compared to Intel, when loading all the cores up. It was a bit of a pain to overclock the 8150, compared to the 2500K Intel CPU.
Seems the best price/performance ratios are found in the Intel 2500K.
I expected more, from all the marketing AMD has been slinging around for the last few years about Bulldozer. Maybe my expectations were too high from all that media blizting they did, but the real world performance levels are worse than a Phenom II, in single threaded cases.
I do not think you can go wrong with Bulldozer, but I see no compelling reason to not use the Intel 2500K over it. In some cases the 2500K performs better, which I would not have expected. If you average it all together, they are pretty much neck-in-neck.
Aces High, in a lightly loaded system, performs better on the Intel 2500K versus the AMD 8150, with stock clocks.
Thanks Skuzzy! I have the 2500k in my wishlist waiting for lower prices. Probably after the 1st of the year. Can't wait!
-
thanks for the feedback skuzzy, pretty much confirms whats written allover the net. Even if I could stick a bulldozer in my AM3 motherboard, I'm not sure the performance is that much better over my current PII 965 BE...
-
Skuzzy, what if you write a benchmark software and share it in your own review website. For example www.skuzzy.info (yes, its available at least when i write this ) :D :aok :bolt:
-
I do not have the money to fund anything like that. I also do not have the time as something like that needs 100% attention. I also have no love for Facebook or Twitter or smart phones, so the site would probably die due to the lack of support of such superfluous nonsense.
Many, not all, people seem to put more value in fluff than substance today. Without creating drama, the site would be a boring technical read, for most people.
It was a nice thought though.
-
I do not have the money to fund anything like that. I also do not have the time as something like that needs 100% attention. I also have no love for Facebook or Twitter or smart phones, so the site would probably die due to the lack of support of such superfluous nonsense.
Many, not all, people seem to put more value in fluff than substance today. Without creating drama, the site would be a boring technical read, for most people.
It was a nice thought though.
Somebody doesn't watch enough Jersey Shore! :lol
Don't worry I completely understand where you're coming from. Just last night I was looking at ABCNews' website and read about the budget (which I won't be going into detail here for obvious reasons) then a story about another missing child.. then a video of a baby making cute giggly noises... then some celebrity stuff.. then a big story about how one celebrity's dress is different than another.. then something about Ashton's divorce... then some tips on how to defrost your turkey.. then some story about the history about putting those stupid holes in your earlobes... then down towards the bottom underneath all this junk was something about some huge technological breakthrough that could revolutionize something.. to be honest I don't even remember what I was so disgusted by that point I gave up reading.
We're living in a world full of messed up priorities and no common sense, but I'm not worried. It will eventually start swaying the other way...
-
I do not have the money to fund anything like that. I also do not have the time as something like that needs 100% attention. I also have no love for Facebook or Twitter or smart phones, so the site would probably die due to the lack of support of such superfluous nonsense.
Many, not all, people seem to put more value in fluff than substance today. Without creating drama, the site would be a boring technical read, for most people.
It was a nice thought though.
you stole my heart with this post, Skuzzy! I am absolute agreement , with the first 4 sentences, Sir!
cheers
TC
-
that argument is all bones & no meat at all! [or all hat & no cattle(?)] :D :D :D
ya know, put in something like this: Guinness World CPU Record
http://www.overclocking-tv.com/content/news/11863/amd-continues-with-cold-bug-free-cpu-extreme-bulldozer/
even intel's much-praised 32nm dont come close. :aok :D :D
I hope this doesn't count as necro-posting but I just noticed this.
I read about the world record overclocking of Bulldozer CPU's... The catch is that it looks like the overclock was done with just just one Module enabled with Liquid Helium.
All the Sandy Bridge overclocks I have seen were with all four cores active at 6GHz with Liquid Nitrogen (with people able to repeat it using Liquid cooling). AMD seemed to be able to push Bulldozer to only 4.8GHz on water cooling with all modules enabled.
It reminds me of when a team did this, other than being really cool to read about was it really useful for anything?
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/pentium-8ghz.jpg)
-
INTEL the intelligent choice of course.
Infidelz
-
INTEL the intelligent choice of course.
Infidelz
Oh, Intel has had their moments. Who could forget the entire "Prescott" family? The worst abortion of CPU's ever conceived and then they had the gall to actally ship them.
-
Oh, Intel has had their moments. Who could forget the entire "Prescott" family? The worst abortion of CPU's ever conceived and then they had the gall to actally ship them.
hah, how true. Good thing they got some common sense before they finished Tejas.. which was speculated to have a TDP of 150W at 2.8GHz and have a 40-50 stage pipeline.
I could be horribly wrong but at this point I feel AMD's FX is gonna go down the road of Pentium 4. (High clock rates, high heat output, slower than Phenom II in a good portion of benchmarks, but to be fair it seems to hold well once loaded up on threads)
-
Yes I had one of those. It was a disappointment. They have redeemed themselves since.
Infidelz
-
back on the subject, is there a certain stepping in the Phenom II class that fixed the problem or it's even more subtle?
-
Unfortunately, there is no way to know. AMD does not publish such information.
-
back on the subject, is there a certain stepping in the Phenom II class that fixed the problem or it's even more subtle?
Unfortunately, there is no way to know. AMD does not publish such information.
in my own opinion, I think most of those who have or had ran into the problem... came across the problem due to buying all the different COMBO packages that sites like Newegg or Tigerdirect or 1buypower etc run on sale...... they throw a bunch of components together, usually mid grade, but they never actually do a build of the components and test them......
they just doing a grouping of components, call it a Combo deal and make one think that the individual buying the Combo is getting a deal.....
out of at least 18+ AMD systems and 4+ Intel systems dating back to 1999, I have yet to run into the issues ( such as spinning clipboard/ needed the AMD Optimizer 1.14 patch , etc....)except for 1 AMD build back at AMD's first released dual core cpu...... ( I have built more, but am refering to PC's built to play Aces High specifically )
the most issues I have seen arise in Aces High, is how people buy pre built PC's with a bloated down OS, or through the years I have seen differing matters regarding processes/resources or video/audio or anti virus/firewall......... but most times it was user error ( besides buying a combo pkg kit and throwing it together without researching what they bought )......
to me, I think the major part between AMD or Intel is the heat/power consumption issues and how they have flip flopped in the past 12 or so years...
YMMV
when I am able too, I am playing Aces High on either my Intel cpu comp.... or on my other PC with AMD
edit: regarding the opening topic: Re: Does AH only use one core of an AMD chip?
Yes it still does, as far as I can tell, but that should not detour an Individual from shying away from AMD for this small lil matter.......... again my own opinion
TC